Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
Normally, The Catacombs treats information obtained from Cathinfo with the same strong reservations as information obtained from say, a sedevacantist site or a Conciliar site. But there are those rare occasions when a good article is published on a sedevacantist or Conciliar site that is shared here - an article that doesn't promoted those particular errors but perhaps does shed light on some other aspects of the crisis of our times.
Similarly, we are sharing here a Cathinfo member's work that has begun collecting a centralized 'data bank' of evidence of the SSPX's steady progression into the Conciliar Church.
Sadly, this 'data bank' is already quite long so it will be posted in segments for ease of reading.
#1: Change (New Mass Participation Sinful or Not?)
All the SSPX faithful should be well familiar with the little blue book, Christian Warfare, published by the SSPX and promoted and used on their Ignatian retreats. In the section on the Examination of Conscience, under the third commandment (page 289 in the 2006 edition) we find the following:
Have you attended and actively participated in the "New Mass"? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?
Yet, in the new edition, this sentence was replaced with:
Clearly the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest attending the Novus Ordo is sinful.
#2: Contradiction (SSPX’ers Married by Conciliarists?)
In the US District, the old SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a) required a signature of the marriage parties before a Society priest would consent to perform the wedding. That form includes the following passage:
"Moreover, I insist on my right to receive all the sacraments in an entirely traditional way, and consequently refuse to have my wedding celebrated by a priest who celebrates the new Mass, or in a church in which the new Mass is celebrated.”
Today, however, the SSPX has accepted to be bound by the April 4, 2017 "Pastoral Guidelines" of Cardinal Mueller (authorized by Pope Francis) which state, among other things:
"Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary [that is, normally the local Diocesan Bishop] is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite..." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/04/step-by-step-vatican-issues-marriage.html
This is a clear and direct contradiction to SSPX Marriage Form M-2(a) of the US District (which presumably has either subsequently been edited to bring itself into compliance with this new norm, or discarded altogether).
(SSPX Faithful married by a conciliar priest in a conciliar church in Canada)
One year after the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre warned the faithful that any overtures from modernist Rome were nothing but a trap:
"That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors." sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations
Bishop Fellay (under the most anti-traditional Pope in history) thinks otherwise:
In his 8/24/16 Australian conference, he said:
"But in itself, you cannot imagine anything better than what is offered there. And such a thing that you cannot think ‘That’s a trap.’ It’s not a trap. And if somebody is offering something like that, we are offered something like that, it can be only because he wants good to us. He wants the good of Tradition, he wants Tradition to spread within the Church.”
#5: Contradiction (Bishop de Galarreta vs Bishop de Galarreta):
On the matter of a practical accord with unconverted Rome, Bishop de Galarreta contradicted himself in only one years' time:
Initially ruling out a merely practical accord, the bishop in 2011 said:
"Following the Roman proposal, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" practical agreement first? Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome leading to such an agreement? As far as I am concerned, the answer is clear: we must refuse this path because we cannot do something evil so that a good (a good which is, moreover, uncertain) can come from it, and also because this would necessarily bring about evils (very certain) for the common good that we possess, namely that of the Society and of the family of Tradition. [...] How then does this not go against the defence and public confession of faith, against the public need to protect the faithful and the Church? In this regard, if we make a purely practical agreement we are, in the present circumstances, already engaging in duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message: we cannot be in "full communion" with the authorities who remain modernists." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/reflections-on-a-roman-proposal-(full-text)/
But only one year later, the exact opposite:
"The Society’s position is much more precise and clear now than it was six months ago; it is much better, for we do not exclude the possibility of Providence choosing to bring about a return to the Faith through conversion [on the Part of Rome, presumably – Ed.] We have simply said: if there is not firstly a return on the part of Rome or of the next Pope to Tradition [...] but if this Pope wishes simply to allow Tradition, what are the conditions that would allow us to accept a canonical normalization, in view of the good that we could do in the Church and this good is considerable? We must not deny this possibility.” archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/bishop_de_galarreta_conference_10-13-2012.htm
The SSPX had "recovered its profound unity" at the chapter, putting the company ahead of the Faith.
#6: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Suicidal?):
From a February/2009 interview with The Remnant regarding autonomy from the diocesan bishops:
Three years later, Bishop Fellay had apparently lost his fear of death:
Bishop Fellay: "It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?" archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_dici_interview_about_rome_6-8-2012.htm
#7: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay vs Archbishop Lefebvre on Vatican II):
"I think, we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the council are in fact not from the council, but the common understanding of it."
#8: Contradiction: (A Deal with Unconverted and Modernist Rome?):
"It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
Bishop Fellay (speaking of his discussions with modernist Rome in his 2/2/12 Winona sermon):
This very thread will suffice to demonstrate that the SSPX has not been accepted as they are, but has instead undergone a radical transformation in pursuit of a canonical regularization.
#9: Change (Is Vatican II Part of Tradition?):
Archbishop Lefebvre commenting on a statement of Cardinal Suenens:
"It was Cardinal Suenens who exclaimed, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church” and among other unguarded declarations he added
“One cannot understand the French or the Russian revolutions unless one knows something of the old regimes which they brought to an end… It is the same in church affairs: a reaction can only be judged in relation to the state of things that preceded it”.
What preceded, and what he considered due for abolition, was that wonderful hierarchical construction culminating in the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth. He continued:
“The Second Vatican Council marked the end of an epoch; and if we stand back from it a little more we see it marked the end of a series of epochs, the end of an age”.
Bishop Fellay in response to a question from the CNS as to whether Vatican II formed part of Catholic Tradition:
"I would hope so,” he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition...The pope says that . . . the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said. rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html
NB: As we shall see later, this same response from Bishop Fellay evinces an acceptance of the "hermeneutic of continuity."
#10: Contradiction (More on Vatican II and Tradition):
In March/2013, Fr. de Cacqueray (then District Superior of France) wrote the following in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors:
"Be that as it may, the Society strongly refuses to admit that Vatican Council II belongs to the Tradition of the Church. We claim on the contrary, that in many points this Council is diametrically opposed to it." sspx.org/en/sspxs-treatment-profound-injustice
Yes, that was surely the SSPX's traditional position.
However, was Fr. de Cacqueray unaware that only 9 months prior, Bishop Fellay had made the following statement:
"Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.
"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.
One of those "privileged" accordist apologists was Fr. Francois Laisney (former District Superior, USA).
In a 12/21/12 article titled "Various Churches?" intended to rebut Bishop Williamson's notion of "Church," Fr. Laisney considers the meaning of the term "conciliar church" as used by Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Then what is the Conciliar Church? This express[ion] was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really."sspx.org/en/various-churches-fr-laisney-rebuttal
However, Archbishop Lefebvre said the opposite of Fr. Laisney:
"How could it be more clear?! From now on it is the conciliar church one must obey and be faithful to, and not to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has it’s new dogmas, it’s new priesthood, it’s new institutions, it’s new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents. This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist on obedience to the church of today, making abstraction of the Church of yesterday, as if it didn’t exist anymore. […] The church which affirms such errors is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm for the Catholic faith is Tradition." www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/ (See footnote #26: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, handwritten and photocopied, of July 29th 1976, to his friends; reproduced in the Sel de la Terre 36, p. 10.)
True, the conciliar church is not 100% distinct from the Catholic Church, but that they are two different churches with different institutions was, at least to Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and the old SSPX, clear and indisputable.
#12: Change (or Hypocrisy?):
In 2003, Fr. Aulagnier was expelled from the SSPX for advocating for a practical accord.
The reasons adduced in favor of reaching a practical agreement with unconverted Rome by Fr. Aulagnier in 2003 are nearly identical to Bishop Fellay's reasons for reaching a practical accord with Rome since 2012:
1) The danger of schism
2) Friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos)
3) An alleged "new attitude in Rome"
4) The conflict may last for ages
The similarities are striking, and cause the reader to wonder:
-Had Fr. Aulagnier kept quiet until 2012, would he not have been in Bishop Fellay's "privileged group" of insiders and apologists?
-If Fr. Aulagnier was expelled for advocating for a practical accord along these lines, by what right does Bishop Fellay retain his membership in the SSPX?
In the article below, Fr. Violette (then District Superior of Canada) is sounding very much like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Resistance, while the rationale he is condemning in Fr. Aulagnier is sounding very much like Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX!
I encourage you to read the entire article, but here are some selections related to the points above:
1) Rebutting the "danger of schism" canard: "Our resistance is not rebellion. It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. We do not want to become Protestants!...What is in question is not their [Roman] authority but whether we can trust them or not...It is a matter of can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith? Unfortunately the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on."
2) Regarding friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos): "Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition? Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms? I don’t think so."
3) Regarding an alleged "new attitude" in Rome: "This is the most unbelievable reason of all. Where has Father Aulagnier [or Bishop Fellay?!] been for the past 5 years?...He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced: there are two Romes: Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome. As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome. Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists. This is a fact...But we are not looking for acceptance."
4) Regarding the conflict lasting for ages: "In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s [and Bishop Fellay's?] change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight! But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages." sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210
This is not merely a change in the SSPX.
It is hypocrisy.
Yet we are to believe the Resistance are the rebels, and the Fellayistas are the loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre??
#13: Contradiction (Doctrinal Pluralism):
Formerly, the SSPX used to oppose a practical accord with unconverted Rome because, among other reasons, it wanted Rome to convert back to the faith, for the good of the whole Church, and therefore refused to become just one more "stripe" of Catholicism among the pantheon of modernist flavors.
In late 2003, Fr. Violette (District Superior - Canada) commented upon the reasons for the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier for his pro-agreement agitation:
"The solution to this crisis will come from Rome when the Roman authorities come back to the integrity of the Faith. But until then we do well to continue our resistance. How long this will take is not our problem but God’s. But we cannot for the sake of a fake unity join those who promote errors, who reduce the Church to a human institution, or simply one religion among others thus destroying it." sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210
And a year earlier, speaking of the modernist Romans, Bishop Fellay declared:
"Currently, there is no conviction that tradition is the right way. They see the fruits; they even say the fruits are good! They say the Holy Ghost is there! (Not too bad!) But, they don’t say, “That’s the way to go.” Instead, they say, “Tradition is a way amongst other ways.” Their perspective is pluralism. Their thinking goes something like this: Oh, look, if we have progressive people who do silly things as members of the Church, then we should also have a place for those who like tradition – a place in the middle of this circus, of this zoo, a place for dinosaurs and the prehistoric animals – that’s our place(!) – “But just stay in your zoo cage,” they will train us…" www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2185
But today, doctrinal pluralism not only seems not objectionable, but, according to this November/2016 interview of Bishop Fellay by conciliar priest, Fr. Kevin Cusick, desirable:
"But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the "fossils" which they think us to be? There is a condition, though: the dinosaurs have to stay in their cage. Imagine crocodiles or dinosaurs all over the zoo! Never! So the Tridentine Mass for everybody? - No! For the dinosaurs in their little cage? - Fine. So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision. As long as things are at that level, it is just unthinkable that we should be able to reach a basic or fundamental agreement. It is impossible. And, once again, let us look at Campos." archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm
#15: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais vs Himself):
In 2012, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was quite relieved a merely practical accord with modernist Rome had been narrowly averted, even citing the intervention of the Blessed Virgin to save the SSPX from disaster:
"Let us trust in the Blessed Virgin who got us out of a tight corner, it is true. This year, She got us out of this tight corner, She did not want any of this talk of an agreement; in other words, that we would go to Rome to submit ourselves to the Conciliar authorities...Dear Faithful, how could you want us to submit ourselves to such a Hierarchy? It would have been impossible to collaborate, it would have been a bogus collaboration, a lie. We would never have collaborated and we would have been constantly persecuted, threatened by the bishops and by Rome. How could one survive in such conditions? With the obligation of signing a misleading text, ah no!" www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/
But by 2016, Bishop Tissier had quite a change of heart:
#17: Contradiction (Still More Acceptance of Doctrinal Pluralism from Bishop Fellay):
As we saw earlier, this was Bishop Fellay's public (but not private) position regarding a doctrinally pluralistic agreement with unconverted Rome in 2003:
"But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the "fossils" which they think us to be? There is a condition, though: the dinosaurs have to stay in their cage. Imagine crocodiles or dinosaurs all over the zoo! Never! So the Tridentine Mass for everybody? - No! For the dinosaurs in their little cage? - Fine. So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision. As long as things are at that level, it is just unthinkable that we should be able to reach a basic or fundamental agreement. It is impossible. And, once again, let us look at Campos." archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm
But after Rome refused Bishop Fellay's signature of the April 15, 2012 "Doctrinal Declaration," Bishop Fellay wrote to Pope Benedict XVI, and stated his willingness to set doctrinal considerations aside:
"I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform...so as to effect a union." - Letter of Bishop Fellay to Pope Benedict XVI (6/17/12) [Original complete Letter available here: www.lasapiniere.info/archives/649]
#18: Compromise: (Branding Campaign: From GREC to You!):
The GREC is a group of diocesan, SSPX, and indultarian clergy and laymen who have been working "discreetly but not secretly" for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome since the mid-1990's.
One of the key strategies in the GREC quest for a practical accord between the SSPX and modernist Rome was for the Society to cease attacking the Roman modernists for their continual scandals.
As an excellent article by a Dominican of Avrille titled "The G.R.E.C.(Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques or: Group for Reflection Among Catholics): A once hidden story, now revealed" explains:
"The leaders of the GREC seem to have been concerned with bringing about the cessation of attacks against today’s Rome. To quote Father Lelong [diocesan GREC kingpin]: Quote
At that time, all too often aggressive and polemical points-of-view were being expressed both on the part of those Catholics attached to tradition14, as well as on that of those who claimed to follow the spirit of the Council. These were not contributing to bring about that climate of peace and mutual confidence which is necessary in the search for a true reconciliation (p. 33).
The Society of Saint Pius X must understand that, even if it has much to bring to the Church of Rome, it also has much to receive from it. Therefore, it must stop rejecting Vatican II in its entirety (p. 85).
In their letter to Benedict XVI of the 9th July 2008, which we have already quoted and which is so important, the leaders of the GREC (therefore, the unofficial representatives of Tradition as well?) desired to reassure the Pope on this point:
Quote We ask the leaders of this Society to cease declarations and polemical articles which criticize the Holy See (p. 50).
On the 20th June 2008, Father Lelong and several members of the GREC had written to Bishop Fellay:
Are you not afraid that by refusing the repeated calls of the Holy Father and by permitting yourselves to criticize him unjustly and systematically, the Society will end up taking a path which will lead it inevitably to separate itself from Holy Church, as has – alas! – happened throughout history? (p. 39).
If you have wondered why your priests no longer condemn Vatican II or Roman modernism like they used to (or why priests ordained from 2009 or later never condemned it in the first place!), you have here your explanation:
The SSPX sold out Archbishop Lefebvre's combat for the faith in pursuit of a practical accord, according to a plan hatched by the modernists themselves.
#19: Contradiction (Tradcumenism):
Archbishop Lefebvre considered collaboration with the rallied/approved once-traditional groups like the FSSP or IBP impossible:
"And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor's field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.
Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.
Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that's the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way! These are people who call us corpse-like traditionalists, they are saying that we are as rigid as corpses, ours is not a living Tradition, we are glum-faced, ours is a glum Tradition! Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that?sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations
But today's Society no longer sees any problem in this regard (after all, a "regularized" SSPX needs to learn how to play well with the other children in the "ecumenical zoo").
Consequently "tradcumenical" collaboration, or gestures implying same, has become commonplace in Europe and America: For example:
Can you imagine Archbishop Lefebvre attending such an event, or posing for pics with those whom he says "are doing the devil's work?"
#20: Contradiction: (More on "the Right to Know"):
We saw in example #4 of this thread that Bishop Fellay had contradicted Archbishop Lefebvre's pastoral approach to the faithful regarding what the faithful did and did not have a "strict right to know:"
Now, we post the declaration of Fr. de Cacqueray (former French District Superior) as showing us what was the attitude of the SSPX in 2008 (i.e., While the ralliement of the SSPX was still in a pre-pubescent stage), where he tells us:
"We must never say these theological discussions are a matter for specialists and do not concern us. It must be emphasized to show that exactly the opposite is the case: because they touch on faith, these issues concern us all, clergy and laity." -Suresne (French District Headquarters), 12/31/08 French original: img91.xooimage.com/files/d/c/7/catechisme_in_fsspx_final-3bdb980.pdf (See #2)
[NB: This quotation is excerpted from the important work, "Catechism of the Crisis in the SSPX," written by an anonymous priest of the French District, which is available here in entirety in several languages, and should be read by every traditional Catholic: www.lasapiniere.info/catechisme-de-la-crise-dans-la-fraternite]
[All emphasis in the original - The Catacombs]
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
#21: Contradiction (Still MORE on Doctrinal Pluralism):
Posts #13 and #17 showed Bishop Fellay in both 2012 and 2016 expressing a willingness to put aside doctrinal differences, and hash out a merely practical accord (a pluralism which threatens the faith by suggesting indifferentism).
But here was the position of Bishop Fellay way back in 1995 (only one year after becoming Superior General):
“We should expect Rome to try to bring us into a universalist amalgam, where we would end up being offered a place “among others”, a little bit like they are already declaring the Orthodox to be “sister churches”. We can think that the temptation to re-enter “officialdom” could be very great, in proportion to the offers which ecumenist Rome could offer us; refusing therefore to enter into this confusion, we would be made to look like wicked villains." (Cor Unum, March/1995) gloria.tv/article/1U7bGzcEc39rCtaRMwZFc3Y9F
However, by no later than 2012 the bishop had already abandoned his former position, and capitulated to the very "temptation" he prophesied in 1995.
Meanwhile, the Resistance, retaining Bishop Fellay's 1995 position, has indeed been made to look like "wicked villains."
#22: Compromise (Religious Liberty):
In a May 11, 2012 interview given to the Catholic News Service (CNS), Bishop Fellay explains his view on Dignitatis Humanae (the Vatican II document on so-called "religious liberty"), beginning at minute 1:25:
"Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the council says about it. The council is presenting a religious liberty which in fact was a very, very limited one, very limited. It would, in our talks with Rome they clearly said that, to mean that there would be a right to error or a right to choose each one its religious - religion - is false."
That statement - which was cause for immediate scandal among SSPX clergy and faithful - is unacceptable, because Bishop Fellay seems to suggest that if "religious liberty" is "very, very limited" then it would be implicitly acceptable.
Bishop Fellay's statement is also suggestive of the idea that perhaps the SSPX itself has been mistaken in its understanding of Dignitatis Humanae and religious liberty.
Yet the Angelus Press website, in the advertisement for Archbishop Lefebvre's "Religious Liberty Questioned" (quoting the Archbishop) lays out quite clearly:
"Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais meticulously explore the question of religious liberty and give a crystal clear picture of what the Church has always taught, what the Second Vatican Council taught, and how they are contradictory...That is why, personally, I do not believe that the declarations of the Council on liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, and liberty of religion can be compatible with what the popes taught in the past. Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory. --Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned" angeluspress.org/products/religious-liberty-questioned-dubia
One more observation:
Bishop Fellay also recounts how Rome told the SSPX during the doctrinal discussions that it is a false understanding of DH to say that it taught there was a "right to error."
Yet he (and Rome) seem to forget how, after the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae, the Holy See modified all its concordats still in force with the few remaining officially Catholic (i.e., "confessional") states, so that countries like Italy, Spain, Columbia, etc. all were forced to remove or modify their constitutions to permit religious liberty. Where these states had formerly declared the Catholic religion the official religion of the state, and precluded public proselytism of the false sects, the state after Dignitatis Humanae, through the action of the Vatican, became officially laicized and religiously indifferent. (See for example: Davies, Michael. The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty: Appendix III. pp. 275-282. Neumann Press).
Yet Bishop Fellay wanted to believe (and wanted you to believe) the Romans when they said DH taught no right to error, when it was these same Romans who destroyed the last of the Catholic governments to bring them into compliance with DH's religious liberty?
"Very, very limited" indeed!
#23: Contradiction (The sales pitch: "A new situation in Rome?"):
In October/2011, the major superiors of the SSPX (excluding Bishop Williamson) assembled in Albano, Italy to consider a Roman proposal for the "regularization of the SSPX." At that meeting, Bishop de Galarreta distributed a remarkable paper which was titled "Reflections on a Roman Proposal," in which he stated, in a section titled "Entry Into Contradiction:"
"To move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra. There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms. It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/reflections-on-a-roman-proposal-(full-text)/
This warning represented a clear recognition that accepting such a proposal would be tantamount to abandoning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre since the time of the 1988 episcopal consecrations.
What was Bishop Fellay's response?
A few months later, in the March/2012 Cor Unum, Bishop Fellay wrote to his priests explaining that there was a new situation in the Church with the hierarchy favoring Tradition and therefore:
Clearly, Bishop Fellay was no longer on the same page as the Archbishop regarding Vatican II.
#25: Contradiction (Jedi Mind Trick: "Conciliar Church" or "Official Church"):
In recent years, the SSPX has sought to replace the use of the term "conciliar church" with a new term: the "official church."
Because for a hierarchy insistent on the hermeneutic of continuity, they cannot possibly "regularize" an SSPX which insists on the rupture which is suggested by distinguishing between the "conciliar church" and the "Catholic Church!"
After all, here is how Archbishop Lefebvre responded to the future Pope Benedict XVI's assertion that he was creating a new church:
"Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it many times, “But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.” I told him: "Your Eminence, it is not us who are forming a parallel Church, as we are continuing the Church of all times, it is you who are forming the parallel church for having invented the Church of the Council, which Cardinal Benelli called the Conciliar Church; it is you all who have invented a new church, not us, it is you who have made the new catechisms, new Sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy, not us. We continue to do what was done before. We are not the ones who are forming a new church." -Econe Press Conference, 6/15/88: tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds
How better to eradicate this distinction than to start replacing the use of the term "conciliar church" with "official church?"
Doing so has the exact opposite implication!
Fr. Gabriel Billecocq (SSPX) explains:
"Recently, in traditionalist Catholic circles, efforts have been made to impose the term official church instead of conciliar church. Of course, official is a good expression of the idea that we recognize that these bishops, though unworthy, occupy power, and this power, as such, we can only respect. But replacing conciliar with official is a serious ambiguity. For the traditionalist catholic, who does not recognize himself as a conciliarist and for good reason, must he now say that he does not recognize himself as an official catholic either? So the traditionalist catholic would no longer belong to the official church? Wouldn't he be fully Catholic then? But then which church would he belong to? To find out, one has to wonder what the official word is opposed to. Answer: unofficial, or hidden, clandestine, or patriotic. But then the traditional catholic does not recognize himself in any of them. Should we say that he belongs to the official church at the risk of being confused with the modernists? No. All that remains then is that he does not belong to the Church. And that's the reason why he's getting so desperate for recognition."laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet333_1712.pdf [English translation: tradidi.com/semantic-treason-fr-billecocq-responds]
And again in the same article:
"In fact, this is a serious and very pernicious ambiguity. Replacing the term conciliar church by official church to apply it to modernists erases the distinction and opposition between traditional and conciliar. By erasing this distinction, one clearly diminishes the struggle of the faith at the risk of denying it and comes to make the traditionalist regret that he does not belong to any truly serious church, giving him the impression that he is not normal and therefore needs to seek normalization. This expression thus conceals the true illness of which the Church is afflicted, puts in a state of inferiority or complexity the true Catholic who has kept the faith and sacraments intact, and so one maintains a typically liberal confusion. In reality, the use of such a confused expression is already liberalism itself and is no longer truly Catholic..." [Ibid.]
Let us not fall for this "Jedi mind trick," and keep our bearings, as Fr. Billecocq suggests:
"To fight an enemy, and a fortiori when that enemy has infiltrated inside the citadel, clear and unambiguous language is needed to designate him. Traditional Catholics do not fight the Catholic Church, that is obvious. But can we make him believe that he's fighting the official church? If it is official, one risks creating some remorse of conscience to fight against it, because it is official and the Catholic Church is official! No, he's fighting the disease. And this disease, he gave it a name: the conciliar church." [Ibid.]
#26: Compromise (Branded SSPX Castrated):
In his letter of 12/31/08, the French District Superior (Fr. Regis de Cacqueray) seemed to be on guard against a conciliatory spirit....
"Vatican II is the uncrowning of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the denial of His rights over societies. Vatican II is an immeasurably harmful and scandalous ‘kindness’ towards souls in relation to these societies, factories of error and vice and purveyors of Hell, which are quite improperly called ‘other religions.’ Vatican II is the triumph of democratism inside the Church which renders all authority illusory, and any command nigh on impossible, and which permits the proliferation of heresy and schism. Vatican II is, in reality, the greatest ever disaster in the Church... To recover, we must get rid of it. In no way whatsoever, therefore, could the SSPX cease from its immense fight to confess the faith, which must include the denouncing of error. The SSPX must remain humble and respectful, but intrepid, fearless, to continue to say what needs to be said, to confess what must be confessed, to denounce everything that needs to be denounced.” tradinews.blogspot.com/2008/12/abbe-regis-de-cacqueray-valmenier-fsspx.html [English translation: gloria.tv/article/1U7bGzcEc39rCtaRMwZFc3Y9F] (See #86)
Well, obviously Fr. de Cacqueray was fighting a losing battle (and he himself went conspicuously quiet later at certain points, eventually leaving the SSPX for the Capuchins of Morgon in the middle of the battle!).
But how had the SSPX lost its courage, virility, and will to condemn that which needed condemning?
Fr. Girouard tells us, in his sermon about his conversation with Fr. Wegner (then Canadian District Superior, and current US District Superior), how the Dutch branding company he hired to remake the SSPX's image advised Bishop Fellay:
"Bishop Fellay, the result of my survey, is that for the last fifteen years, you had it all wrong! You will never get more faithful and more people to come to your churches if you continue this way, because right now, the Vatican II Church is like an old man dying, and it's like dying flat on the street. Like they lose their seminaries, they lose their monasteries, they sell their churches, and it is a dying church! And you are really looking bad when you continue to fight that Church! It makes you look like a cruel... or like you exaggerate, or like you are kicking somebody who is already dying! So your new branding has to change you completely! You have to stop arguing; you have to stop fighting; you have instead to go on the positive side, and to show the beauty of the traditional liturgy, the beauty of the traditional theology, and that way people will not see you as cruel, or bitter, or things like that.”
And this is why, since the branding of the society, DICI has changed; the SSPX websites have changed; the Angelus has changed. And in fact, interestingly enough, if you go back to the first issue of the new Angelus, what does Father Wegner say? Go back if you have it, and read it. He says:
“We will not anymore put the emphasis on the battle and the fight, but we will put the emphasis on the beauty of the Gregorian chant, the beauty of art...” And so forth and so on. Go ahead and read it." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-girouard's-sermon-revealing-fr-wegner's-branding-campaign/
Bishop Fellay heeded this advice, and so it has been ever since.
#27: Change (Contrasting Bishops: Lazo vs Huondor):
But Bishop Lazo did not come in as a conciliarist! He had been studying Tradition for some time, and after protracted prayer and reflection, made his decision, fully on board with Archbishop Lefebvre's fight against modernism. [Emphasis - The Catacombs]
In 1998, he sent a famous public "Declaration" to Pope John Paul II, in which he said, among other things:
"I retired in 1993, 23 years after my episcopal consecration. Since my retirement, I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of ecumenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with Protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae...After having known those mutations, I decided to stop saying the New Rite of Mass, which I was saying for more than twenty-seven in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. I returned to the Tridentine Latin Mass because it is the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper which is the unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary. This Mass of all times has sanctified the lives of millions down the centuries...Holy Father, with all the respect I have for you and for the Holy See of St. Peter, I cannot follow your own teaching of the "universal salvation", it contradicts Sacred Scripture...I am for eternal Rome, the Rome of Ss. Peter and Paul. I do not follow Masonic Rome. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Neither do I accept modernist Rome. Pope St. Pius X also condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis in 1907. I do not serve the Rome that is controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the Prince of devils." archives.sspx.org/bishop_salvador_lazo/bishop_lazos_declaration_of_faith.htm
Now there is a voice that rings familiar! Respect for the Chair of Peter, but an absolute refusal to collaborate in any way to the auto-demolition of the Church.
As such, the advent of Bishop Lazo was a most welcome development.
More recently, another bishop has come to the SSPX: Bishop Vitus Huondor (Currently an active bishop form Switzerland approaching retirement, and who will spend his retirement at an SSPX Swiss boys school).
A German-language news source gives us the facts (later verified by Bishop Huondor's own spokesman):
"The Bishop of Chur [Switzerland], Mgr Vitus Huonder, will retire after his term as Bishop of Chur in Wangs in the canton of St. Gallen and will live there in the Sancta Maria Institute, a school of the St. Pius X Fraternity. Giuseppe Gracia, the bishop's spokesman, confirmed this on Monday at kath.net. www.kath.net/news/66646
Here are some images of this latest friend of the SSPX:
"This step is linked to a mission that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome entrusted to Bishop Vitus: to maintain contact with the Fraternity of Saint Pius X," said Giuseppe Gracia. The acceptance of the resignation of the Bishop of Chur should take place around Easter." [Ibid.]
And as Francesca de Villasmundo of the French media outlet Medias-Presse Info (MPI) observes:
"If we understand Mr. Garcia's comments correctly, the coming of the conciliar Bishop Huonder to the priestly Fraternity founded by the traditionalist Bishop Mgr Lefebvre to preserve Catholics from the spirit of Vatican II is therefore done in consultation and with the approval of modernist Rome, the objective being to "maintain contact" between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Society of Saint Pius X. This new approach of Rome is probably part of the rapprochement, or rallying, in stages that Pope Francis wants to achieve.
Still says the Novus Ordo. Still a man of Vatican II. And working as an admitted operative for Pope Francis.
The contrast between the two bishops could hardly be greater, but it does have the benefit of showing where Menzingen's head is at.
Does anyone believe Bishop Lazo would be any more welcome in the 2019 SSPX than Bishop Williamson?
But a Bishop Huondor, well, "come on in!"
#28: Contradiction ("Current sacramental practice" vs. the "Three Essential Conditions"):
On 7/17/12, the Secretary General of the SSPX (Fr. Christian Thouvenot) sent an internal letter to all the superiors of the SSPX, informing them of the General Chapter's decision to settle upon three "sine qua non conditions" (i.e., Something that is absolutely necessary; essential)
The second of these three "essential" conditions required "the exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we currently maintain (including: holy orders, confirmation, marriage)."
At the time, Bishop Williamson criticized the weakness of these conditions in his Eleison Comments, noting there was nothing to stop Rome from reneging after an accord was signed.
In response, Mr. Brian McCall (an indulterer of The Remnant persuasion) sprung to the defense of these conditions, noting in regard to this second condition that:
"this term includes all sacramental practices currently used by the Society. Since the Society does not currently use these yet-to-be promulgated changes and options apparently under consideration in Rome the condition makes clear the Society cannot be made to accept them. Again, His Excellency ignores the precise terms of the real condition and seems to be criticizing a differently worded condition, one that employs a less precise and more ambiguous terminology."archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/wrong_or_right_conditions_for_the_sspxs_future10-2-2012.htm
On the contrary: It was Mr. McCall who, in focusing only on this condition relative to the Mass, had overlooked the application of this condition as regards the other sacraments.
It seems Bishop Williamson had a broader understanding of how this condition might be handled by the Romans in the future, and history was not long in proving him right:
On March 27, 2017 Cardinal Mueller (with the approval of Pope Francis) promulgated new pastoral guidelines for the performance of marriages in the SSPX, radically altering "current sacramental practice," and totally scrapping this second "essential" condition, stating:
And more than this, it moved swiftly and ruthlessly against its own priests who raised their voices in response to this change in "current sacramental practice," by demoting all of them, and transferring some to obscure locations. novusordowatch.org/2017/05/french-sspx-in-disarray/
The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that neither Rome nor Menzingen took this "essential condition" seriously, and just as Bishop Williamson predicted, moved quickly to circumvent it.
It didn't even last five years.
#29: Change (The Jews):
In the immediate wake of Bishop Williamson's 2009 "holocaust interview," Bishop Fellay, in a declaration made to the Famille Chrétienne (a French Catholic weekly) on January 31, 2009, went into damage control mode, declaring:
The Jews are our elder brothers? So, do they need to convert?
Did Archbishop Lefebvre agree with the contention that the Jews are our "elder brothers" in the faith?
Well, on 4/13/86, Pope John Paul II, during his visit to the Rome synagogue, stated:
"The Jewish religion is not "extrinsic" to us, but in a certain way is "intrinsic" to our own religion. With Judaism therefore we have a relationship which we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers." www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-42x_en.html
Archbishop Lefebvre's response just a few months later was withering:
"I don't understand! And when he went to the synagogue, he didn't say, "You Jews must convert to the Catholic Church," as did St. Paul and St. Peter and all the Apostles when they were in the synagogue. When they went to the synagogue, they said to the Jews—to their brother Jews—they said: "You must become Christian now. The Old Testament is the preparation for the New, the preparation for Christ's Kingdom. You must now become Christians." But they were put out of the synagogue and they were killed. Some Apostles were killed by the Jews because they spoke the truth. But now the pope says, "Oh, your religion is very good, you are our older brothers." Incredible! Incredible! The pope is not a missionary when he says that. He is not a missionary, no longer a true Apostle. That is very, very sad, very sad, for the Catholic Church." sspx.org/en/lefebvres-1986-atlanta-interview
If the Pope is not a true Apostle when he says that, is Bishop Fellay be a true Apostle when he says it?
#30: Contradiction (Fr. Robinson's Book Signals a "New Attitude" in Menzingen):
For decades, Bishop Fellay gave conferences in which he spoke of an alleged "new attitude in Rome" and in more recent years an alleged "new openness to Tradition."
For its part, Rome might observe a "new attitude in Menzingen," which moves well beyond the tenets of the branding campaign (by which the SSPX was made to cease war on conciliar and Roman modernism, as was explained in post #26 of this thread), and into the active promotion of modernism.
-The book would be published by a conciliar publishing company;
-The Foreword written by Novus Ordo priest.
-Fr. Robinson would champion the exegetical interpretations of Fr. Stanley Jaki (a modernist who questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as well as the literal interpretation of Gen: 1-3, which was the near-unanimous consensus of Church Fathers);
-The book would feature a denial of a global flood;
-The book would feature a denial of a young age for the earth (thereby purporting to remove a significant obstacle to the acceptance of evolution);
-The book would reject the consensus of the Fathers' literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account;
-The book would represent an endorsement of the heretical historico-critical method of exegesis;
-The book would suggest a redefinition of scriptural inerrancy by admitting the possibility of error into Biblical historical accounts;
-The book would reject the traditional Martyrology's account of a young earth:
“In the year, from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine; from the flood, two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven; from the birth of Abraham, two thousand and fifteen; from Moses and the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, one thousand five hundred and ten; from the anointing of King David, one thousand and thirty-two; in the sixty-fifth week, according to the prophecy of Daniel; in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad; in the year seven hundred and fifty-two from the founding of the city of Rome; in the forth-second year of the empire of Octavian Augustus, when the whole world was at peace, in the sixth age of the world, Jesus Christ, eternal God, and Son of the eternal Father, desirous to sanctify the world by His most merciful coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and nine months having elapsed since His conception, is born in Bethlehem in Juda, having become man of the Virgin Mary.” –Martyrologium Romanum(reading for the 25th day of December)
Shortly thereafter, evolution zealots invaded Cathinfo to defend their pet (one of them a St. Mary’s college professor). It didn’t matter that Fr. Robinson himself denied evolution. His championing of old earth theory had ostensibly removed the barricade and placed the SSPX upon a new trajectory in that direction, and Rome knew it.
The purpose of this book was to telegraph to Rome that the Society was down with modernity, and Rome need not fear them staining the conciliar church’s reputation by projecting “ignorant pre-conciliar attitudes” “disproven” by “science.”
[Emphasis in the original unless otherwise noted.]
In April, 2013 Fr. Daniel Themann gave a notorious conference titled "Resistance to What?" in St. Mary's, KS, which was designed to run damage control against a mounting pile of evidence adduced by the Resistance, all of which tended to demonstrate that the SSPX was compromising on many issues in pursuit of a practical accord with unconverted Rome.
At a certain point, Fr. Themann addressed the matter of avoiding speaking against Roman modernism, or anything running contrary to the branding campaign, stating:
Yet only a few months prior, in December/2012, Bishop Fellay forwarded to all the priests of the SSPX a letter from Archbishop di Noia, in which the latter implored priests to drop the combat against modernism (and having been forwarded to them by their Superior General, the message was clear: These are marching orders):
"In these circumstances, while hope remains strong, it is clear that something new must be injected into our conversations if we are not to appear to the Church, to the general public, and indeed to ourselves, to be engaged in a well-meaning but unending and fruitless exchange. Some new considerations of a more spiritual and theological nature are needed, considerations that transcend the important but seemingly intractable disagreements over the authority and interpretation of Vatican Council II that now divide us, considerations that focus rather on our duty to preserve and cherish the divinely willed unity and peace of the Church. It seems opportune that I should introduce these new considerations in the form of a personal Advent letter addressed to you as well as to the members of the Priestly Fraternity..What, then, is being asked of the Priestly Fraternity in the present situation? Not to abandon the zeal of your founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. Far from it! Rather you are being asked to renew the flame of his ardent zeal to form men in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Surely, the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years..Attention should certainly be paid to the passages of the Magisterium that seem difficult to reconcile with magisterial teaching, but these theological questions should not be the focus of your preaching or of your formation." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/01/di-noias-letter-full-text-in-french.html
What was this but exactly that which Fr. Themann denied:
An official mandate directly from the Superior General not to preach polemics against Vatican II and the Roman modernists (Not in the form of a personally written order, it is true, but all understood the Superior General does not take the unprecedented step of forwarding to every priest of the SSPX a letter in this matter only so they can disregard it!).
And what of the screen shot of the email of 6/7/12 which appeared in The Recusant #11 from Fr. Arnaud Rostand's (i.e., Fr. Themann's own District Superior) email to the priors of the US District, advising priests that:
From the Superior General, to the District Superiors, to the Priors, to the priests, the orders clearly affirm exactly that which Fr. Themann denied:
An edict from the Superior General -via the implicit endorsement of the position of Archbishop di Noia- to avoid polemics regarding the situation in the Church and Rome.
#32: Change (Rank Liberalism: "The Flying Squirrel"):
In the summer of 2013, the French Resistance website Avec l'Immaculee ("With the Immaculate") broke the story regarding a new SSPX periodical being circulated in India. It was called (bizarrely) "The Flying Squirrel," and read like any mainstream conciliar parish newsletter:
Articles featured a deranged sermon by Pope Francis, a panegyric regarding the communist Jesuit destroyer, Fr. Arrupe, a glowing review of World Youth Day, a blurb about the Jesuit Center for Human Rights, a sentimental story about a Pentecostal minister arrested for his Pentecostalism, a new radio station launched by the Bishop of Cochin, something about "our passion for football" by the Opus Dei founder, an article on new age "centering prayer," and on and on.
Well, as usual, they don't respond at all until these things hit the internet, and in this case, it was Fr. Brucciani who made the response:
"Dear Mr -------,
Don't worry, we have not gone all liberal. You are not the first to express wonder [about The Flying Squirrel] and so I put together an official statement:
The Flying Squirrel was conceived and produced by Fr. Christophe Beaublat who is now the prior in India. About 120 copies were printed for distribution in our Indian Mass Centres. The controversial edition [of The Squirrel] referred to in the open letter to Bishop Fellay was printed without my approval one week before Fr Beaublat took over as prior. When I pointed out the controversial parts of the edition (controversial because passages could be interpreted as a sign of liberalism), Fr. Beaublat did not agree with my judgement. I did not insist that the copies be destroyed before they were distributed because I judged [full quote included below by The Catacombs]:
That the inclusion of the controversial parts were the result of Fr. Beaublat's charitable and generous interpretation of
the Pope's utterances
the apostolic works of modern Catholics
the benefits of eccentric meditation techniques and alternative medical therapies
That the few faithful who read the publication would be forgiving or uncomprehending
That, as I would become his subordinate within the week, it would have made our relationship very difficult.
Unfortunately, I did not foresee the scurrilous campaign of the dishonourable priests who have the effrontery of calling themselves the "Resistance" or even worse, "The Marian Corps". Fr. Beaublat is not a liberal, he is just indulgent (perhaps to a fault). As far as I am aware, Fr. Beaublat must now submit any further publications to the District Superior before printing.
Finally, for the record, the Salve Regina magazine used to be the Tamil publication of the priory. When Fr. Valan left India, he continued to publish the magazine without authorisation from his new post in the Philippines, so, instead of his superiors preventing this, they decided that the priory publication should change its name. It was changed to SANCTA MARIA and is still published every two months.
A very interesting statement from Fr. Brucciani about Fr. Beaublat not being a liberal, since less than two years later, Fr. Beaublat left the SSPX for the conciliar church!
In other words, we have, for all intents and purposes, a conciliar SSPX priest spewing rank liberalism into an SSPX periodical being defended by the future District Superior of England.
The company always comes first.
Had Fr. Brucciani rejected, rather than defended, the actions of Fr. Beaublat, I would not here be writing about the matter.
#33: Contradiction (Eroding Conditions):
In post #28, we saw that at the 2012 General Chapter, the SSPX had overturned its previous policy of not considering an accord with Rome before the doctrinal issues were resolved, and instead declared there to be 3 sine qua non (i.e., absolutely essential) conditions to be met before the SSPX could consider a canonical "regularization."
We saw that the second of these allegedly "absolutely essential" conditions was the right to continue their then-current sacramental practice, not only as regards the liturgy, but also the other sacraments (including marriage).
And then less than five years later, we observed with dropped jaws the SSPX gleefully surrender this allegedly sine qua non condition, thereby altering its sacramental practice to bring it into line with Cardinal Mueller's "pastoral guidelines" for SSPX marriages.
But a couple months before accepting those March 27, 2017 "pastoral guidelines," the SSPX itself had already contradicted its three allegedly "sine qua non" conditions, and whittled them down to one:
"I think we do not have to wait for everything to be resolved in the Church, for all the problems to be solved. But a certain number of conditions are necessary, and for us the essential condition is our survival. So I have told Rome, very clearly, that, just as Archbishop [Marcel] Lefebvre used to say in his day, we have asine qua non condition: if this condition is not met, then we will not move. And this condition is for us to be able to remain as we are, to keep all the principles that have kept us alive, that have kept us Catholic." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-fellay-gives-rome-clear-condition
In all likelihood, Bishop Fellay was aware of the forthcoming promulgation of the pastoral guidelines which would change SSPX sacramental practice, and in order to avoid highlighting the blatant violation of its own previously declared condition, pre-empted focus on that violation by shifting the goalposts, and redefining what was "essential:"
From three sine qua non conditions in 2012, to one sine qua non condition in 2017.
As regards this new allegedly sine qua non condition of Rome "accepting us as we are," this thread more than suffices to demonstrate that this condition has also been repeatedly violated and disregarded by Menzingen.
It is no longer a case of Rome agreeing to accept the SSPX as they are, but as they have become.
#34: Contradiction (SSPX Priests Attend the Indult Mass):
Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX pulled no punches in teaching the faithful why the Ecclesia Dei communities had sold out the fight for tradition, and that therefore we ought not to attend their Masses:
The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:
It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:
to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this, question 5),
to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),
to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,
to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).
In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:
they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,
they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and
note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (question 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).
They are therefore Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics.
This being so, attending their Mass is:
accepting the compromise on which they are based,
accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.
But that was the SSPX before the ralliement (or rather, before the ralliement was made public!).
Now days, the SSPX has swept these teachings under the rug, and what could serve as a better example to illustrate the repudiation of these teachings than the scandalous example of SSPX priests attending the first Mass of a newly ordained priest of the Institute of Christ the King in Belgium.
"On Saturday, September 12, 2015, Canon Pierre Dumain celebrated his first Mass in the Basilica of Saint Joan of Arc du Bois Chenu in Domremy. The young priest's family is based in Liffol-le-Petit. Ordained a priest on July 2 in Florence, Italy, by Cardinal Raymond Burke for the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, he celebrated the Holy Sacrifice according to the extraordinary rite of the Catholic Church in the presence of his family, friends and many faithful. Several canons attended the Mass as well as priests from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, Father Fourgerolle, the Diocese of Langres, and the Rector of the Basilica Father Lambert, the parish priest of Domremy. The homily was given by Bishop Gilles Wach, founder of the Institute of the Sovereign King Christ Priest, a canonical apostolic life society of pontifical right founded in 1990."histoirepatrimoinebleurvillois.hautetfort.com/archive/2015/09/13/premiere-messe-du-chanoine-pierre-dumain-en-la-basilique-de-5684030.html
Could there be a greater example depicting the extent of the metamorphosis of the Fellay-led SSPX away from the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre (who, as we showed in post #19, viewed the indult groups as betrayers, shaking hands with the enemy, and doing the devil's work)?
Can you imagine Archbishop Lefebvre sitting down to a sermon by (pseudo) Monsignor Wach?
Does this rallied SSPX have anything in common with its founder besides saying the same Mass?
#35: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay: If only Archbishop Lefebvre had seen this Novus Ordo...):
In January/2013, Cardinal Antonio Canizares (Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship) told the Catholic News Agency the following story:
“On one occasion,” Cardinal Canizares recalled, “Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said,
‘We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did.’
Possibly, but it is difficult to imagine a cardinal (aware of the significance of what he was about to tell the world) would make such a statement unless he was sure of his understanding of what had been said.
As for those who might be wondering why Bishop Fellay was attending a new Mass in the first place, the SSPX noted in the same apologia:
"Nevertheless for a while - and until these new damaging effects were clearly recognized - Archbishop Lefebvre did not strictly prohibit attendance at the New Mass. It was only after a few years that he prohibited the seminarians from going to the New Mass while on their holiday’s vacations."
Very true, Your Excellency. But this was 2013, not 1972!
#36: Contradiction (Fr. Schmidberger vs Fr. Schmidberger):
In April of 1991, it was Fr. Franz Schmidberger (Superior General) who delivered Archbishop Lefebvre's funeral sermon, and in a wonderful statement of fidelity to the founder declared his continuity and fidelity to him:
By 2016, "the spirit of destruction" was "blowing in the bishoprics and the Roman dicasteries" as never before, under the worst pope in the 2,000 year history of the Church.
Obviously, talk of an agreement with ultra-modernist Rome would be even more preposterous than it was in 1991, right?
In a scandalous internal letter (originally composed in German, but leaked and translated into French, and eventually translated into English with the translation receiving the authorization of Fr. Schmidberger himself), he opined thusly:
Fr. Michel de Sivry August 9, 2014 - St. Peter's Basilica
Not only is this priest wearing the conciliar chasuble (without maniple; amice uncertain), but he is also wearing red (the proper liturgical color for the conciliar calendar, but not for the votive Mass of the BVM he celebrated in the traditional rite, which should have been white).
And of course, the women in the background are not veiled.
#38: Compromise (The Story Surrounding the Suppression of Fr. Pivert's Book):
In 2013, Fr. Francois Pivert (then SSPX - France) amassed a remarkable compilation of Archbishop Lefebvre's writings, conferences, sermons, and interviews, and assembled them into a book called "Son Excellence Mgr. Lefebvre: Nos rapports avec Rome" ("His Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre: Our relations with Rome"). As Fr. Pivert explains, "The book that you have in your hands is composed essentially of texts of Monsignor Lefebvre."
350 pages of them, all of which tended to reject the possibility of ralliement with unconverted Rome, and by implication painted Bishop Fellay (and his supporters) in a very bad light.
In response, on December 20, 2013 the General House, via Fr. Christian Thouvenot (Secretary General - SSPX) issued an internal letter to Bishops, superiors, and the priests of the French District, stating:
"In addition, Circular Letter No. 2013 - 06/08 of 12 August 2013 contained a notice concerning an unauthorized book: "His Excellency Monsignor Lefebvre: Our Relations with Rome", published without authorization. Since then, our Superior General has written to our confrere, Father Pivert, a letter in which he prohibits this book from being distributed - despite a large number of texts by our founder - on the grounds that it is misleading and that it distorts the position that Monsignor Lefebvre had in his relations with the Holy See. He has sent him a study that substantially corroborates his own judgment, which I ask you to find attached. Therefore, I ask you to ensure that this book is no longer distributed in our chapels, press tables and catalogues." img110.xooimage.com/views/2/4/a/lc-2013.12.2-page-001-55d3a68.jpg/
Very well. What is in this study which "substantially corroborates" Bishop Fellay's own judgment?
Well, were it not for the courageous leak of Fr. Matthieu Salenave (then SSPX - France), who desired to expose the lies of Menzingen in pursuit of an accord which flagrantly violated the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, we might never have known!
For his courageous fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre, and disseminating this document, Fr. Salenave was expelled from the SSPX.
What was revealed in it that so infuriated Bishop Fellay and the accordists?
Here are a couple pertinent samples:
1. The study objects to Fr. Pivert's contention that all the talks Archbishop Lefebvre had with Rome were geared toward bring them back to Tradition:
"It is obvious that, in the eyes of the founder of the FSSPX, the real reason for these relationships - which Father Pivert never mentions in his comments - is to normalize the situation of the Fraternity. Rome is not for the Archbishop a movement or a party to be converted like any other, but rather the head of the Church. For him, Peter's primacy is not an optional article of faith and everything must be done to find common ground with the Apostolic See." (Attached study, p. 9)
Yet to the bishops-elect in 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre said:
"As I wrote to them on June 2, however courteous our conversations have been, they have persuaded us that the moment for an understanding has not yet come. We must have some protection against the spirit of Assisi. They never tackle the basic problem, never! So all our efforts have gone for nothing. We have been at cross purposes in these conversations. On our side, we are expecting the return of Tradition to Rome. www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect_June_13_1988.htm
And in fidelity to this purpose of Archbishop Lefebvre's position, the 2006 SSPX General Chapter Declaration said:
"Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life". " archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2006_general_chapter/declaration_of_2006_general_chapter.htm
Already, we can see it is Fr. Pivert, and not Bishop Fellay, who has the better grasp on Archbishop Lefebvre. No wonder Bishop Fellay wanted to overturn the General Chapter Declaration!
Or this one:
2. Though we earlier quoted Archbishop Lefebvre as describing the Ecclesia Dei communities as betrayers of tradition, and doing the devil's work (See post #19 of this thread), Bishop Fellay has quite another idea:
"The attitude towards the Ecclesia Dei circles is counterproductive...Throughout the pages, we discover fairly harsh judgments against them that are not put into context...Between the consecrations and his death, [Arch]bishop Lefebvre had little time to see these communities evolve...Finally, the facts showed that they were able to resist the assaults. In 1999, they overcame an attempt by Rome to bring them into line and, gradually, almost all of the sixteen signatories of a letter advocating biritualism had to leave the FSSP. Today, there are 250 priests celebrating exclusively the ancient rite. No one can say that [Arch]Bishop Lefebvre would have maintained the same apprehension as in 1988 over the years. At the same time, if we look at [Arch]Bishop Lefebvre's correspondence, we can also find more moderate pieces towards the Ecclesia Dei communities, conceding the fact that they are not rallied in spirit and that they have the advantage of reminding the bishops daily of what Tradition is."
These two examples suffice to show the great divergence in the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, both as regards the purpose of contacts with Rome, as as regards their thinking about the Ecclesia Dei communities (and consequently, why Fr. Salenave was expelled for revealing the contents of Bishop Fellay's thinking to an SSPX clergy and faithful to whom Bishop Fellay wanted hold out the illusion of continuity with the founder).
#39: Contradiction (Is Pope Francis a Modernist?):
The hard part about being a diplomat, is that such persons find it very difficult -wanting to be pleasing to both sides- to maintain a principled position.
This was no more evident than in a sermon given by Bishop Bernard Fellay during the solemn Pontifical Mass given on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at St. Vincent de Paul’s Church in Kansas City, Missouri for the Angelus Press Conference. Commenting on a scandalous statement by Pope Francis, Bishop Fellay explained:
"That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist...How much time will be needed for people with authority in the Church to stand up and to say ‘by no means!’ [will we accept this new teaching]." sspx.org/en/node/2599
Well, shortly thereafter Rome came calling, and the faithful were treated to yet another Bishop Fellay "clarification" (demonstrating that he was he not able to follow his own advice and "stand up" to Roman modernism). This clarification was quickly posted on the SSPX website, and almost as quickly deleted, after being caught in an embarrassing attempt to explain away the contradiction, thereby highlighting Bishop Fellay's diplomatic weakness:sspx.org/en/bishop-fellay-pope-francis
But Novus Ordo Watch quoted his reversal (er, "clarification"):
“I used the word ‘modernist;’ I think that it was not understood by everybody. Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions. Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense: a man who develops a whole coherent system; that coherence does not exist.” novusordowatch.org/2013/12/interview-fellay-francis-talks-too-much/
The same website rightly observes, "Bp. Fellay seems to be contradicting his earlier accusation against Francis here, because he called Bergoglio a “genuine Modernist” precisely in the context of false teaching – not action."
And the NCR also recognized this latest Bishop Fellay "clarification" as a reversal of his previous statements (as does any sane man with reading comprehension) when it states:
Having been excluded from the meeting of major superiors in Albano, Italy the previous year (gathered to consider the Doctrinal Preamble submitted by Rome), and then excluded again from participating in the General Chapter in June, 2012, it seemed Bishop Fellay had determined to have no more opposition to his reorientation and sellout of the SSPX to modernist Rome.
The two reasons usually adduced as examples of "disobedience" were:
1) The refusal to close his weekly Eleison Comments, which regularly warned the faithful and clergy of the sellout underway;
2) The "unauthorized" apostolic visit to Brazil to confer the sacrament of confession [?Confirmation] to Dom Tomas Aquinas' faithful at the Holy Cross Monastery.
Regarding this latter excuse, we shall have more to say in our next post.
For the present purpose, it suffices to cite the fact of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, noting that the primary purpose of it was to remove an obstacle to the ralliement and facilitate the talks regarding same with Rome (per SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner):
#41: Change (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part II):
In the previous post, we saw that one of the two main reasons adduced as justification for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from the SSPX was the bishop's "unauthorized" pastoral visit to Dom Thomas Aquinas's Holy Cross Monastery to offer confirmations to the faithful attached thereto.
But what was the historical context within which this pastoral visit transpired?
Why were the General House and the South American District so enraged?
One familiar with the strained relationship between Dom Thomas Aquinas and Menzingen between 2000 - 2012 will know the answer, and this succinct description by the Dominicans of Avrille tells the reader all he needs to know:
"When Benedict XVI issued his Motu Proprio on the “extraordinary rite”, Father Thomas Aquinas refused to sing the Te Deum at Sunday Mass, as asked by Bishop Fellay to greet the papal document. Furthermore, on the occasion of the alleged lifting of the alleged excommunications, Father Thomas Aquinas wrote a letter to Bishop Fellay in which he announced that he would not obey if an agreement with conciliar Rome took place. Soon after, Bishop de Galarreta and Father Bouchacourt came to the monastery to tell Father Thomas Aquinas that he had fifteen days to leave Santa Cruz, otherwise the monastery would no longer receive any help or sacraments from the SSPX. With Bishop Williamson’s spiritual assistance, Father Thomas Aquinas was able to stay at the monastery. On 8 September 2012, he wrote: 'Unity must be based on the truth, that is to say on the Catholic Faith; and the words and attitudes of Bishop Fellay are unfortunately not those of a disciple of Archbishop Lefebvre who defended the truth without compromise...'" www.dominicansavrille.us/presentation-of-bishop-dom-thomas-aquinas-o-s-b-part-2/#easy-footnote-bottom-1
And there it is: Bishop Fellay was trying to spiritually starve and extort the Benedictines into compromise, while Bishop Williamson was charitably subverting Bishop Fellay's punitive coercion and helping the Benedictines to stay faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. This is the true cause of the punitive expulsion of Bishop Williamson: He kept subverting Bishop Fellay's sellout.
But what jurisdiction did Bishop Fellay and the SSPX have over the exempt religious orders?
Had not Archbishop Lefebvre written to Dom Thomas Aquinas that,
Note also that, in the Communique released shortly after Bishop Williamson's visit by Fr. Bouchacourt (then South American District Superior), he implies that Bishop Williamson's visit was not necessary, since "for many months" the SSPX had already planned to perform confirmations in Brazil (and by implication, also for Dom Thomas Aquinas). archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/fr_christian_bouchacourt_8-6-2012_communique.htm
However, that implication is not consistent with Bishop Fellay's earlier declaration to Dom Thomas Aquinas that, unless he resigned, the monastery would no longer receive financial or spiritual assistance. Nor would it have made any sense for Bishop Williamson to have gone to Brazil in the first place, if confirmations for Santa Cruz were already scheduled (i.e., Dom Thomas would not have needed him. What would be the point?).
#42: Contradiction (The Expulsion of Bishop Williamson - Part III):
In post #40, we noted the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, the reasons adduced for said expulsion (i.e., refusal to close the Eleison Comments and his "unauthorized" pastoral visit to Brazil), and the convenient impact said expulsion was perceived to have upon negotiations between the SSPX and Rome, according to the SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner.
In post #41, we discussed the historical tensions surrounding the relationship between Menzingen and Santa Cruz, resulting from Dom Thomas Aquinas's refusal to abandon the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and the punitive response by Bishop Fellay as both punishment and coercion, which led to Bishop Williamson's "unauthorized" pastoral visit.
In this third and final installment regarding the subject of Bishop Williamson's expulsion, we examine the doctrine of necessity to consider applied to Bishop Williamson's pastoral visit, in order to determine whether, according to Catholic doctrine, it was truly "unauthorized" (and consequently, whether or not his expulsion, in such measure as it was based upon this pastoral visit, was just):
Essentially, the article (and the SSPX) argued the following points:
1) There existed a state of grave general spiritual necessity, because:
-"are threatened in spiritual goods"
-"of great importance (e.g., faith and morals)"and
-"are without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."
2) In that situation:
-There is a duty, sub gravi (i.e., grave), on the part of bishops,
-To come to the assistance of the faithful,
-With the jurisdiction springing from the request of the faithful (not the authorization of the superior),
-And to refuse to do so is a mortal sin.
3) In carrying out this duty, Archbishop Lefebvre had no obligation to receive permission from the Pope because:
- "In such extraordinary circumstances, says Dom Grea, the episcopacy proceeded "resolute in the tacit consent of its Head rendered certain by necessity" (op. cit. vol.I, p.220). Dom Grea does not say that the consent of the pope rendered the bishops certain of the necessity. On the contrary, the necessity rendered them certain of the consent of the pope. Precisely why did the necessity render the consent of their Head "certain," consent that in reality those bishops were ignoring? - Evidently because in necessity the positive judgment of Peter is owed." (Ibid, Part I)
4) And as regards the "no" of the Pope:
-"It makes no difference to what we have just said if recourse to the pope is made materially impossible by external circumstances, as in the historical cases recalled by us [in Part 1]. But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circumstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circumstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls." (Ibid, Part II)
-"These circumstances, however, will have the effect of rendering the duty of help more difficult and perhaps even heroic on account of the easily foreseeable consequences. It will be denied that there is any state of necessity! The rebuke implied in the act of helping the people will draw down upon whoever does so revulsion and unjust accusations." (Ibid, Part II)
5) "For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circumstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that it is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission." (Ibid, Part II) Now, these quotes are applied to the case of allegedly "unauthorized" episcopal consecrations (i.e., consecrations which are, in truth, authorized by the state of necessity regardless of what the superior -in this case, the Pope- says).
It does not take much imagination to see all these principles applied to the case of Bishop Williamson's pastoral visit to Brazil:
1) When Bishop Fellay levied a punitive sanction against Dom Thomas Aquinas's monastery and faithful for not going along with the sellout of Tradition to modernist Rome, and refused to provide the sacraments of Order and Confirmation (and presumably also holy oils?), he immediately created a state of grave general spiritual necessity, because there were now "many souls" who were "threatened in spiritual goods" of "great importance" and who were "without hope of help from their legitimate pastors."
2) Yet Bishop Williamson -as bishop- had the grave duty to come to the aid of the faithful, which he could not refuse without committing mortal sin.
3) In the performance of this duty, there was no obligation to obtain the consent of Bishop Fellay, because that consent was owed.
4) And had Bishop Williamson nevertheless asked permission, it would have been predictable declined, because though Bishop Fellay would be physically accessible, he would be morally inaccessible (i.e., Because Bishop Fellay, same as John Paul II above, was the ultimate cause of the necessity!), which nevertheless would not relieve Bishop Williamson of the grave duty the request from Santa Cruz had placed upon him.
Moreover, Bishop Williamson's action was heroic in view "of the easily foreseeable consequences:"
Implicitly, Fr, Bouchacourt's letter (quoted in post #41) stating confirmations had already been scheduled to be performed less than two months after Bishop Williamson's visit was a pre-emption of the claim of necessity...if such scheduling could be substantiated.
But as we discussed, if Bishop Fellay had already interdicted Dom Thomas Aquinas, then why were confirmations scheduled? And why was Dom Thomas Aquinas calling upon Bishop Williamson if such was the case?
5) At any rate, we arrive with Suarez at the same conclusion:
"For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circumstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that it is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission." (Ibid, Part II)
Consequently, we conclude that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, in such measure as it was based upon this heroic pastoral visit, was unjust.
#43: Change (General Councillors):
Leading up to the 2012 General Chapter of the SSPX, the US District published an article titled "How it Works: The SSPX's General Chapter," in which it explained, among other things:
"The General Chapter is the supreme and extraordinary authority of the Society of St. Pius X. The ordinary authority is the Superior General assisted by his council. The General Chapter is the only entity able to amend the Statutes." sspx.org/en/how-it-works-sspxs-general-chapter
That said, the same article noted that the council was comprised of the Superior General and his 1st and 2nd Assistants:
"Ordinary authority in the SSPX: the Superior General and his Assistants: the General Council. According to the Statutes, the Assistants are meant to assist. Their first duty is to advise. Together with the Superior General, they form the General Council." (Ibid)
But by 2018, the winds of change were blowing. The Society was fatigued by the turbulence of the last several years, and the prospect of re-electing Bishop Fellay for another twelve-year term (a 36-year reign?) was exasperating and demoralizing. On the other hand, although the "plan to proceed by stages" toward a practical accord was 85% accomplished, which in theory could make the replacement of Bishop Fellay acceptable in the eyes of Rome, he would still need to be near the action, overseeing, and informing his protege of all the water which had passed under the bridge, introducing him to Roman contacts, revealing what had yet to be accomplished, and most importantly, ensuring continuity vis-a-vis Rome between the old regime and the new.
To accomplish this goal, it was decided at the 2018 General Chapter to create a new position: Two "General Councillors" would now be added to form part of the council:
"On July 20, two General Coucillors were elected to serve on the Council of the Superior General; they are Bishop Bernard Fellay, former Superior General (1994-2018, and Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General (1982-1994) and current director of the Herz Jesu Seminary in Zaitzkofen (Germany)." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/general-chapter-sspx-comes-end-39488
By this artifice, the two most well connected and informed men in Rome retained their influence, and signaled to the world all would remain as it had been for the last 6-7 years.
On 12/31/14, an interview with Fr. Nicklaus Pfluger (then, 1st Assistant to the Superior General) appeared in the German periodical Der Gerade Weg, in which Fr. Pfluger attempted to justify the contradiction between the 2006 General Chapter declaration (i.e., No practical accord before until Rome returns to Tradition) and that of 2012 ("We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization [with unconverted Rome].").
"None of us, amongst the superiors, could have imagined in 2006 that...the Pope would declare that the “old Mass” was never abrogated, that it had its place within the Church. In 2006, Rome’s attitude towards us was aggressive, apodictic... "
You yourself knew! You all knew! Was it not Bishop Fellay who, in Cor Unum #85 of (October/2006) spoke of an:
"imminent arrival of a motu proprio which would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass." (Rioult, Fr. Olivier. The Impossible Reconciliation (2013 English edition, p. 16)
What, then, are we to make of your contention that in 2006 the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum was unforeseeable (and the alleged implication that, because of it, Rome was no longer opposed to Tradition, thereby justifying the new position promulgated by the 2012 General Chapter)?
In the previous post, we demonstrated that Fr. Pfluger's contention that, "None of us, amongst the superiors, could have imagined in 2006 that...the Pope would declare that the “old Mass” was never abrogated, that it had its place within the Church" was confusing, in light of the Cor Unum #85 (October - 2006), in which Bishop Fellay spoke of an "imminent arrival of a motu proprio which would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass."
But the careful reader may have noticed the use of ellipses (...) in the Fr. Pfluger quote.
What was edited/omitted in my presentation of the Fr. Pfluger quote?
Here is the full quote (with the omitted words bolded):
In 2009, following in the wake of Bishop Williamson's "holocaust interview," the SSPX went into worldwide damage control mode: Many books touching upon the "Jewish question" were removed from chapel bookstore shelves; SSPX websites were quickly filtered and expurgated for content (particularly for anything authored by Fr. Denis Fahey, who had been the standard bearer for the Kingship of Christ in SSPX circles for decades); and the works of Fr. Denis Fahey in SSPX publishing houses suddenly were "out of stock" (never to be replenished).
At the end of this 3rd party biography of Fr. Fahey are recommended three of his books, but there are no links to them, as one might formerly have expected.
And supposing I have missed a book available here, or an article still posted there, the very least that can be said is that the SSPX has severely curtailed its media material regarding the Jews in its quest for canonical "regularization."
It no longer matters that the works of Fr. Denis Fahey expound better than almost any other the full social doctrine of Christ the King, and were (and still are) powerful tools for making converts to Tradition, such as Bishop Salvador Lazo (who explicitly attributed his conversion in part to the works of Fr. Fahey, stating):
"Reading these books gave me a better idea of the crisis and confusion in the Church today. It became clear to me who are the real enemies of the Catholic Church. Fr. Denis Fahey pinpointed them when he wrote: "The enemies of the Catholic Church are three. One invisible, Satan, and two visible: Talmudic Judaism That Judaism is the visible chief enemy of the Catholic Church, is evident from the Church history, from words and deeds of individuals, and groups and the teachings of the Talmud of which the Kabalah constitute the basis of Judaism." archives.sspx.org/bishop_salvador_lazo/my_return_to_the_traditional_mass_part_1.htm
But the SSPX realizes Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican, and the latter cannot accept to "regularize" a group perceived as anti-semitic. So Fr. Fahey had to go.
Moreover, Fr. Fahey's works represent a direct challenge and rejection to Nostrsa Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae at a time when the SSPX is going soft in these areas, as proven by Bishop Fellay's "Conflict Zone" interview with Tim Sebastian, or his earlier cited comments regarding Vatican II's religious liberty being "very limited."
#47: Change (Worldliness):
Sometimes, no words are necessary:
PS: I was going to finish by posting the 2013 pic of the Sanford, FL priests riding roller coasters at an amusement park, but it looks like it was memory-holed as well:
“In order never to be guilty of any unedifying act, the priest must regulate his actions, his movements and his habits in harmony with the sublimity of his vocation. He who on the altar almost ceases to be mortal and takes on a divine form, remains always the same, even when he comes down from the holy hill and leaves the temple of the Lord. Wherever he is, wherever he goes, he never ceases to be a priest, and the serious reasons that compel him always to be grave and appropriate accompany him with his dignity everywhere.
“Hence he must have that gravity that will ensure that his words, his bearing, and his way of working arouse love, win authority and excite reverence. For, the very reasons that oblige him to be holy make it a duty for him to show it by his outward acts in order to edify all those with whom he is obliged to come into contact. A composed and dignified exterior is a powerful eloquence which wins souls in a much more efficacious manner than persuasive sermons. Nothing inspires greater confidence than an ecclesiastic who, never forgetting the dignity of his state, demonstrates in every situation that gravity which attracts and wins universal homage.
“If, on the contrary, he forgets the holiness of the sacred character which he bears indelibly impressed and engraved on his soul, and if he fails to show in his outward conduct a gravity superior to that of certain men of the world, then he causes his ministry and religion itself to be despised. For when gravity is wanting in its leaders, the people lose respect and veneration for them.” -Pope St. Pius X Recipe for Holiness: St. Pius X and the Priest, (Lumen Christi Press, Houston: 1970), “Dignity and Propriety,” pp. 81-2.
The SSPX goes to Sea World...for Lent (Does the priest furthest to the left look familiar?):
When visitors, and especially priests, come to one of our houses, they have to sense an atmosphere of gaiety, of simplicity, of concord; of firm attachment to the truth, but also goodness, charity, indulgence, openness of heart toward those who come to visit, in order to bring them closer to our Lord. -Priestly Holiness by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
In 2017, some anonymous Romans plastered 200 posters around the city which satirized Pope Francis's war against Tradition, saying:
"Ah, Franky [referring to Pope Francis using a Roman dialect form of Francis which suggests great familiarity], you’ve put Congregations under supervision, removed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate and ignored Cardinals… But where in all this is your compassion?”insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-7-2017-posters-pope/
Indignant, the SSPX lept to the Pope's defense, denouncing the use of satire as an acceptable means of combating the crisis in the Church and Rome:
"And again, we could laugh too - if the subject was not so dramatic, if the person and function of the Pope were not involved, and if all this was not an expression of the chaos in Rome. Is This a Proper Way to Combat the Crisis in the Church? Further, and as we have touched on before, we cannot support this passive-aggressive and disrespectful method of "correcting" the Sovereign Pontiff. sspx.org/en/news-events/news/satire-new-way-combat-the-crisis
But is it true?
Is satire really an unacceptable means of combating Roman (and papal) modernism?
Archbishop Lefebvre sure didn't think so.
At the time of the Assisi event, the Archbishop personally sent these two satirical cartoons to Pope John Paul II, with the following words:
Be so good as to meditate on these two pictures, since you are deaf to the anguished appeals which we have filially addressed to you. Deign at least not to offend gravely and in public against God's First Commandment: the salvation of your soul is at stake! Preach Jesus Christ, as did the Apostles, even at the cost of their lives. That is the fervent and filial wish of those who still remain Catholic.
Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Emeritus of Tulle."
(-Williamson, Bishop Richard N. Letters from the Rector, #41 and #42)
Obviously, if the use of satire with regard to the person of the Pope was acceptable to Archbishop Lefebvre, but not to Bishop Fellay, then this is but yet another contradiction between the old SSPX and neo-SSPX.
#50: Contradiction (Jewish Deicide):
In December of 2013, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt (then SSPX South American District Superior) gave an interview to the Spanish-language newspaper Clarín (the largest newspaper in Argentina) on the subject of the Jews.
Notice that even the reporter knew that the charge of deicide was the traditional Catholic position.
But it wasn't so long ago that the SSPX adhered to that same position, and though you would have a difficult time knowing it today by searching their websites (i.e., because of the purging of Jewish content mentioned in post #46), not even two years before Fr. Bouchacourt's denial, the SSPX had published an indignant rebuttal to what it called Pope Benedict XVI's "sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth."
"The responsibility of the Jewish people as such for the death of Christ has been the constant teaching of the Magisterium, based on Scripture and the Church Fathers. St. John speaks three times in his Prologue of the rejection of Christ by His own (meaning His own people or nation). Romans XII speaks of the rejection of Israel for the profit of the Gentiles. See also St. Augustine’s Treatise 49 On John, near the end: “The chief priests and the Pharisees took counsel together...’If we let Him alone as He is, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ Fearing the destruction of temporal things, they took no thought of eternal life, and so they lost both. After the Lord’s Passion and glorification the Romans did indeed take away both their place and their nation, by assault on the city and dispersal of the people.” The Fathers connected the punishment of the loss of the nation to the crime of deicide, perpetrated by the highest ranking political and moral authority: the Sanhedrin."jhate.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/gesture-to-the-jews-from-benedict.pdf
Yet the SSPX wants you to believe there have been no changes, contradictions, or compromises?
"We have always been at war with Eurasia!"
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
#51: Contradiction ("Saint" Faustina and the Divine Mercy Devotion):
It used to be that the SSPX uniformly rejected the practice of inculcating and/or promoting novel and questionable conciliar devotions attributed to dubiously "canonized" saints, and the "Divine Mercy" devotion of Sr. Faustina Kawalski was no exception.
In an excellent 2010 article, Fr. Peter Scott (former US District Superior) took aim at the Divine Mercy devotion, noting that it was:
"Condemned by the Holy Office. There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions: The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister Faustina is not evident. No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted. It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sister Faustina.
The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established: The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden. The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor." www.angelusonline.org/index.php?article_id=2895§ion=articles&subsection=show_article
It was not until the Polish Pope lifted the censure upon the works of Sr. Faustina in 1978 that this devotion was "rehabilitated" in and for the conciliar church.
That fact, along with the pride and presumption Fr. Scott notes in Sr. Faustina's Diary, sufficed for SSPXers (clergy and lay) to steer clear of this new devotion.
How surprising it was, then, to see this devotion creeping into the SSPX during the post-2012 years of SSPX ralliement (or, perhaps not).
"Did you know that the neo-FSSPX, in some of its official sites, promotes devotion to Faustina Kowalska:
The Facebook of the Neo-FSSPX of Poland publishes phrases from the "Diary" of Sister Faustina:
The weekly St. Mary's newsletter of December 7, 2014, includes "Saint" Faustina among the "Relics for Advent until the Christmas season":
And in the catalog 2010-2011 of the "Editorial Sarto", of the District of Germany, there are two books of Sister Faustina for sale (one is her "Diary"):
These few examples, taken from official SSPX websites, publishing houses, and newsletters suffice to illustrate a disturbing new openness to conciliar "saints" and devotions which stands in sharp contrast to the prudent spirit which animated Fr. Scott's article.
But if you are going to join the conciliar church, you must not reject its "saints" and devotions.
#52: Change (Modernist Books for Sale):
In post #50, we referenced a (since deleted) article from SSPX.org denouncing what it termed Pope Benedict XVI's "sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth."
But that is not all. Did you know that this catalog also offers the following modernist works for sale:
"Jesus of Nazareth", by Benedict XVI
"The Spirit of the Liturgy", by Benedict XVI
"Reflections on the Priesthood", by Benedict XVI
"Luz y Sombra", by Card. Walter Brandmuller
"Dominus est", by Mons. Athanasius Schneider
And that they not only include these books by modernist "conservative" authors, but also sell "extreme" modernist works?:
"Basic works of three great women of Helfta", by Hans Urs von Balthasar - Margot Schmidt
And it also draws attention to the fact that, in the Editorial Sarto, the "Saint" has [been] removed the authors canonized by the Church, according to modernist usage:
#53: Contradiction (Modesty in Dress):
On 6/21/15, SSPX.org published a great article in "The Pastor's Corner" titled "How Catholics Ought to Dress," which included among many other timely reminders, this statement:
"An even further consideration for men and women is to dress properly according to their nature, or respectively, according to their masculinity or femininity. For men, this means they should not wear tight-fitting clothes or in general, go shirtless in public (especially for fathers, even around the home in front of their children).
For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.
It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).
However, just yesterday, in a post titled “Another Look Inside Operations of the Regina Coeli House - Assistant Priests & Staff,” the very same district office which less than four years prior published the above letter included a picture of its office staff:
With every single female employee unanimously flaunting the Church’s (and SSPX's) own moral norms for modesty in dress (i.e., they are all wearing pants), the message sent is unmistakable:
Either the SSPX no longer endorses traditional norms for modesty, or, they have no wish to be taken seriously when they do. MODERATOR POSTSCRIPT 3/13/19:
The SSPX just edited the picture, so that it conveniently cuts off before showing that all the women wear pants. I have added the "after" photo to this post as an attachment. This is why every website article, photo, etc. referenced in this CCCC thread has to be archived: the SSPX isn't above changing or deleting embarrassing data "down the memory hole" Ministry of Truth style when their cause requires it.
#54: Contradiction: (A Slip of the Lip?):
On October 24, 2012 the General House of the SSPX issued a communique announcing not merely the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, but also stating the reason for the expulsion:
"Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/sspx-williamson-removed.html
We covered this in post #40, so why is it getting mention again?
Because on March 19, 2015 (i.e., the day of the episcopal consecration of Bishop Jean Michel Faure by Bishop Williamson), Menzingen issued another communique designed to please its Roman handlers in which it gave a completely different reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson (and we might add, that which is most likely the true reason):
"Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre." sspx.org/en/consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure
It doesn't matter for our present purposes that this latter/true reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson is a caricature of Bishop Williamson's posture vis-a-vis Rome (i.e., He opposed relations aimed at obtaining a practical accord with unconverted Rome, but not as regards a willingness to help them convert back to Tradition, should they ever want to do so). What does matter, is that it corroborates the indiscreet admission of SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner, that, "The decision [to expel Bishop Williamson] will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]." religion.orf.at/stories/2555877/
The minions of Menzingen had insisted for three years that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson had nothing to do with the elimination of an obstacle standing in the way of a practical accord, but was instead (as the 10/24/12 communique stated) purely and simply a matter of disobedience.
But anxious to show their Roman handlers how "different" they had become from the old SSPX "Williamsonites," particularly as regards their newfound respect for authority, the Society issued that strident denunciation, and in the course of doing so, unwittingly showed their true motivations.
#55: Contradiction (SSPX Denounces the Episcopal Consecration of Bishop Faure):
On March 19, 2015 Bishop Williamson consecrated Jean Michel Faure bishop at the Holy Cross Monastery in New Fribourg, Brazil.
That same day, the SSPX media machine went into high gear trying to distinguish between Bishop Faure's episcopal consecration and those of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.
Surely they were troubled by the thought of the parallels so evident to the clergy and faithful of the SSPX and Resistance, and in an attempt to limit the damage, published articles trying to distinguish between the two. The first one was a communique of the General House on 3/19/15, in which it was alleged that:
"In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops who would have no jurisdiction, because of the state of necessity in which the Society of St. Pius X and faithful Catholics found themselves at that time." sspx.org/en/consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure
But informed readers must have been quite perplexed to see this fact alleged as a distinction between the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, since in the reading of the Mandatum Apostolicum, Bishop Williamson clearly stated that:
"After having done everything conceivable to gain permission from the Holy See, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with the solemn consecrations on June 30, 1988..."
But in arguing along these lines, the SSPX makes a twofold self-condemnation:
Firstly, the SSPX made no attempt whatsoever to secure the permission of modernist Rome in 1991, when three of its bishops consecrated Licinio Rangel to the episcopate following upon the death of Bishop Castro de Mayer. Therefore, if Bishop Williamson's actions were odious in 2015 for making no attempt to secure the permission of Rome, then so were the SSPX's actions in 1991.
Secondly, the reason why the SSPX never approached Rome regarding the 1991 consecration of Licinio Rangel is because, as it used to teach, the Pope would have said "no," but such refusal would not have relieved them of their duty to come to the aid of souls trapped in necessity, so there's no point in asking:
"But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circumstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circumstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls." www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
"The state of necessity in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre is precisely the case in which the lawmaker cannot impose the application of the law because it has become, by force of particular circumstances, contrary to the common good and to the divine natural and positive law. On his part, under the pressure of a precept of divine natural and positive law, “…the subject [e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre – Ed.] not only may, but he is bound not to observe the law, whether he asks or does not ask for permission to do so from the superior.”
Which is all another way of saying that in 1988, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, he hoped until the last minute that there might be a bit of loyalty shown by Rome, but to no avail. By 1991 at the time of the Bishop Rangel consecration, there was no point in asking permission any longer, since there was no doubt as to Rome's refusal (a refusal which nevertheless, was powerless to relieve the bishops of their grave duty to souls trapped in necessity). Therefore, it would be impertinent to ask permission for what must be done in any case.
Now, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander:"
If the passages above justified the SSPX in 1991, then it is incomprehensible how they do not justify Bishop Williamson in 2015.
For the SSPX to condemn the consecration of Bishop Faure, then, is to serve as a self-indictment.
And if the example of the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel must be admitted as a righteous deed (and it was), then this nugatory difference between the 1988 and 1991/2015 consecrations must be dismissed as lacking substance, which in turn leaves the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations practically identical:
-They both featured practically the same Apostolic Mandate;
-They both based themselves on the state of necessity;
-They both explicitly announced the withholding of any apostolic mission (i.e., jurisdiction);
-And they both took place from a desire to provide for Tradition.
#56: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Regarding a Deal With Pope Francis):
From the Avrillé Dominicans, Letter n° 87 (May 13, 2014):
"In the April-May  issue no. 88 of Le Rocher, (the bulletin of the SSPX Swiss District), on the question of an eventual agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay responded: “Right now [that is, under Pope Francis], that would be foolish.”
We believe contradictions such as this one are well represented by this picture of His Excellency:
#57: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Saying Everything and its Opposite Regarding a Deal with Rome):
In 2001, Cardinal Hoyos informs us that Bishop Fellay was open, already at that time, to the possibility of a practical accord for the SSPX, noting only that doing so might cause some internal problems, but not opposing such a solution in principle:
"After these events, in noting your good will and based on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not spreading any heretical doctrine and did not maintain schismatic attitudes, I had dared you to propose, without consulting anyone first, to set a possible date for reintegration. I suggested as a possible date the Solemnity of Easter 2001, and Your Excellency, although surprised, did not exclude this possibility, while expressing in any case that, probably, at the center of the Society of St. Pius X a few problems would arise." www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4650
But confronted with the intervention of Bishop Williamson and the Dominicans of Avrille, Bishop Fellay hit the brakes, and by 2003, while secretly considering how to avert those obstacles (as his prior sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC unequivocally demonstrates), was saying the opposite in Letter #63 while he bided his time:
"In the eyes of Rome, the Campos-Rome agreement was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us. Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX...The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos."sspx.org/en/publications/letters/january-2003-superior-generals-letter-63-798
But then the alleged fulfillment of the two preconditions for doctrinal discussions was supposed to have evinced a new desire for Tradition in Rome, and consequently, by March - 2012, Bishop Fellay wanted you to believe that the SSPX must rethink its former resistance to a merely practical accord. After all, the SSPX needed to help Rome convert the Church back to Tradition:
"The situation of the Church may require us to take prudent measures related and relevant to the specific situation. The General Chapter of 2006 issued a clear course of action in regard to our situation with Rome. We give priority to faith without searching our side a practical solution to resolve the issue BEFORE doctrinal.
This is not a principle but a line of conduct which must govern our actions. We're here in front of reasoning in which the major premise is the affirmation of the principle of the primacy of faith to remain Catholic. The minor premise is a historical observation on the current situation of the Church and the practical conclusion is based on the virtue of prudence governing human action, nothing to seek agreement to the detriment of the faith. In 2006, the heresies continue to emerge, the same authorities and spread the modern spirit of Vatican II modernist and imposed on all like a steamroller (is the minor premise). It is impossible to reach a workable agreement unless authorities become, otherwise we would be crushed, shredded, destroyed or subjected to such strong pressure that we could not resist ('s the conclusion).
If the minor premise changed, ie if there is a change in the situation of the Church in relation to the Tradition, this could lead to a corresponding change in the conclusion, that our principles have not changed at all! As Providence is expressed through the reality of the facts, to know His will, we must follow closely the reality of the Church, observing, examining what happens.
But there is no doubt that since 2006, we are witnessing a development in the Church...It maybe in Rome where these things are more obvious! We now have friendly contacts in the departments most important, also among those closest to the Pope!
But this announced willingness to overturn the position of the 2006 General Chapter, thereby departing from Archbishop Lefebvre's post-consecratory posture vis-a-vis unconverted Rome, had ignited the furor which spawned the Resistance, and faced with growing opposition, Bishop Fellay had to retreat, declaring only one year later:
But viewed historically, one sees clearly all these contradictions were really nothing other than taking "two steps forward, and one step back:"
When necessary, Bishop Fellay would assume a traditional posture ad infra to reassure the clergy and faithful, while retaining his reconciliationist policy toward Rome ad extra as he marched steadily and relentlessly toward a recognition by unconverted Rome.
#58: Contradiction ("Discreet, but not secret?"):
In October/2010, DICI staged a brief interview with former First Assistance to the Superior General, Fr. Niclaus Pfluger on the subject of possible SSPX compromises in its relations with conciliar Rome. In response to the question, "Some have accused the SSPX of working towards a compromise. Do you see reasons for such fears?" Fr. Pfluger responded:
Compare that statement with information contained in GREC kingpin Fr. Michel LeLong's 2011 book "The Necessary Reconciliation," which documents not only the history, goals, and progress of the GREC, but also the SSPX's part in it.
As described in the review by Dom Curzio Nitoglia:
"The “White Father”, ordained priest in 1948, recounts the history of the dialogues held by the “Groupe de Reflexion Entre Catholiques" (Group for Reflection between Catholics) (GREC), with certain leading members of the Society of Saint Pius X, dialogues which he defines as “discrete, but not secret” (p.29), with the view to a full agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican; this after having accepted the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition, or the Hermeneutic of Continuity, and having received the freeing of the Traditional Mass, the lifting of the excommunications and full canonical systematization."
"He, along with other leading traditionalists brought together in GREC, has sought to bring forward this dialogue that he calls ‘more charitable and diplomatic than it is doctrinal’ (pp.21-2), in order to arrive at an agreement as to the compatibility between Vatican II and Tradition."
"Father Lelong relates of how at the start of 1996, he became acquainted with certain leading figures in the SSPX. Before all, he refers to Don Emmanuel du Chalard of the Priory at Albano Laziale (p.24) who ‘has never ceased to offer his support to GREC, just as precious as it is discrete’ (p.24), and in 1997 with Father Alain Lorans, ex Director of the SSPX Seminary at Econe, then of the Institute of Saint Pius X in Paris and finally, Editor of the SSPX’s official publication DICI (p.24). The meetings took place at the home of Hugette Perol at Rue de Rome in Paris; they were attended above all by Mrs Perol, Fr. Lelong, Fr Lorans who accounted for them to the SSPX Superior General (p.29), and Father Olivier de La Brosse, a Dominican who later became the official spokesman for the French Episcopal Conferences (pp. 24 & 25)."
"In early 2000, the highest Vatican authorities came to be informed of these GREC meetings – never secret, no longer discrete and by now completely public (p.29) – and amongst these the names of the Nunzio Apostolico of Paris and the President of the French Episcopal Conferences stand out (p.29).
Huguette Perol, Fr. Lorans and Fr. Lelong were received by many Vatican authorities (pp. 30 & 31). Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was notified about them (p. 48, as was Cardinal State Secretary Angelo Sodano (pp. 42-3). doncurzionitoglia.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/698/
Note that Fr. LeLong is persistent in distinguishing between "secret" and "discrete."
In this context, the distinction is largely illusory: If I tell you to "keep the meeting secret" vs telling you to "be discrete about who you tell," the effect of either is the same: Do not publicize these meetings; keep them hidden from the public view. And unless you were one of the liberal insiders working for a practical accord (all the while paying lip service about there being no practical accord before the doctrinal issues are resolved), you knew nothing about the existence of the GREC, its aims, players, or status of their machinations.
It was S-E-C-R-E-T, and Fr. LeLong's insistence upon classifying these dialogues as "discrete but not secret" is most likely made with a view toward gaining history's favorable perception regarding these initially back-door meetings (i.e., "secret" is negative and masonic; "discrete" is "prudent" and "Catholic").
Who can forget the sermon of Fr. Jean de Morgon, which broke the news of the existence of the GREC to the world, and who was so shook up by his discovery that he felt his own life might be endangered for having revealed the plot:
"I expect to be cast into the street, being labeled “sede-vacantist” (defamation is a classical tactic of the subversives to marginalize their opponents). If some tragedy will happen to me - it is necessary to foresee everything - I have confided this letter and all my hot documents to some dependable friends, who can disseminate them should the need arise. I know that my parents will provide for me and help me to re-start or, better said, to continue my religious life somewhere else. It is an enormous pain for me to become “vagus”, but if this is the will of the Good God in this astonishing crisis, so be it! I have no trust in Bishop Fellay, who uses his authority to cover this whole operation." www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f031ht_LetterFrJean.htm
Let us now return to the quote by Fr. Pfluger:
"The SSPX does not compromise; Bishop Fellay has no secret plan, strategy, or policy regarding the Faith in dealing with Rome."
We leave it to the reader to judge of the veracity of such a statement.
#59: Contradiction ("Abnormal" Canonical Status: Fr. Pfluger vs Bishop Tissier de Mallerais):
In October-2012, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger gave an interview to Kirchliche Umschau regarding the situation of the SSPX, in which he made the following comment:
The idea that there was anything "abnormal" about Catholics who had remained faithful to Tradition was certainly a subversive idea, because as the Avrille Dominicans explained (verbally), "Naturally, if you convince the clergy and faithful that they are in an abnormal situation, they will try to normalize it."
In any case, a couple years after Fr. Pfluger's statement (which had been making the rounds from SSPX pulpits, conferences, apologetics, and internal letters for years), the old Bishop Tissier briefly reemerged, and in a blistering indictment of those he called "false friends" who suggested the SSPX needed to cure its "abnormal situation," responded:
"Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church. The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back. But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church." [Transcript: www.therecusant.com/tissier-1jan2015]
[Audio, beginning at 22:35 ]
What a breath of fresh air!
But as quickly as he had emerged, Bishop Tissier's voice vanished.
Nevertheless, a brief moment of courage sufficed to render a lasting and memorable reminder of the SSPX under Archbishop Lefebvre, and which of us (we traditionalists, or Roman modernists) were stuck in an "abnormal situation."
[Obitur Dictum: The entire sermon is well worth listening to in the audio link provided. I have no idea why there is a picture of Bishop Fellay on the Bishop Tissier audio link.]
#60: Contradiction (More on "Abnormal Situation: "Bishop Tissier vs Fr. Schmidberger):
In this 2012 interview with Rivarol, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais once again rejects the notion that the SSPX is in any real kind of "irregular situation:"
Rivarol: The imminent "reintegration" of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) within the "official Church" is mentioned widely. What is it exactly? Bp. TISSIER de MALLERAIS: “Reintegration”: the word is false. The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has never left the Church. It is in the heart of the Church. There where the authentic preaching of the faith is, there is the Church. This project of "officialization" of the SSPX leaves me indifferent. We have no need of it, and the Church has no need of it. We are already on the pinnacle, as a sign of contradiction, that attracts those noble souls, that attract lots of young priests, despite our pariah status. One would wish to place our lamp under the bushel for our integration in the Conciliar world. This status that is proposed to us, of a personal prelature, analogous to that of Opus Dei, is a status for a state of peace. But we are currently in a state of war in the Church. It would be a contradiction to wish to "regularize the war". Rivarol : But some in the Society of Saint Pius X think that it would be in fact a good thing. Are you not bothered by this "irregular" situation? Bp. TISSIER de MALLERAIS: The irregularity is not ours. It is that of Rome. A Modernist Rome. A Liberal Rome that has renounced Christ the King. A Rome that had been condemned in advance by all Popes up until the eve of the [Second Vatican] Council. On the other hand, the experience of the priestly societies that have joined current Rome is that all, the ones after the others, included Campos and the Good Shepherd, have been constrained to accept the Vatican II Council. And we know what has become of Bp. Rifan, of Campos, who now has no objection to celebrating the new mass and who has forbidden his priests from criticizing the Council! rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/bishop-tissier-de-mallerais.html
But by 2016, Fr. Franz Schmidberger (like Fr. Pfluger before him) was also keen to overcome what he felt was an "abnormal situation," and in a subversive internal letter which was later leaked to the internet, stated:
It was the same "scare tactic" Fr. Simoulin had been inculcating in SSPXers for the previous two years (Since his letter "Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance") in which he, like Fr. Schmidberger, wanted you to worry about becoming schismatics if we didn't "regularize" our "abnormal situation."
Obviously, Bishop Tissier didn't see it that way, much less the post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre (who, again, spoke of a "strict duty to separate from the conciliar church").
[Obitur Dictum: The Avrille Dominicans refuted this concern here:
In addition, the expression used implies that we are in an abnormal situation. What is actually abnormal is that the authorities spread modernism. To make a comparison, if a father forces his children to steal, under the threat of grave punishment, they are bound to disobey him and resist him; certainly it is abnormal that children resist their father; but the first disorder is indeed that of the father; and if it becomes untenable and dangerous for their virtue, it is prudent for them to get away from him. As this disorder remains, the children are forced to resist, or to stand aside. It would be incomprehensible for the children to resume normal relations with their father, because they know that he is obstinate in his vice. In our case, we keep our distance from modernist Rome for the reasons mentioned above, and for others we will see in the following articles. As these reasons remain, we are obliged to stay in the situation we find ourselves in and to be qualified “abnormal” by the objector. www.dominicansavrille.us/is-it-not-a-duty-to-seek-official-recognition-from-the-pope/]
[All emphasis in the original.]
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
#61: Contradiction (Bishop Tissier vs Fr. Schmidberger: Are the faith and Sacraments Sufficient?):
In his previously quoted rousing Chicago sermon of January - 2015, Bishop Tissier was quite adamant that we traditionalists possessed everything we needed to be Catholics:
"First of all, the visible church? We are the visible Church! Who practice visibly the True Faith. We have the unity of the Faith. We have the saintliness of the Sacraments and of our lives. We are Catholics because of our Faith in the Society and the true Christians are spread all out throughout the world. We are Apostolic who have still the Faith of the Apostles. We possess the full notes of the Catholic Church: Unity, Saintliness, Catholicity, Apostolicity...We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition." www.therecusant.com/tissier-1jan2015
However, elsewhere in the previously quoted leaked 2015 internal letter of Fr. Schmidberger, we see that he had descended into legalism:
"If the faithful or some confreres feel comfortable in this situation of freedom relating to independence from the hierarchy, then this indicates a creeping loss of the sensus Ecclesiae. We must never argue: “We have sound teaching, the true Holy Mass, our seminaries and priories and above all bishops. So we don’t need anything.” rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/considerations-schmidberger-letter.html
#62: Change (SSPX/Ecclesia Dei Reciprocity Program?):
In post #34 of this thread, we noted the reasons the SSPX had traditionally given for avoiding the indult Mass, and then we showed you how that same SSPX ignored its own teaching ("Do as I say, not as I do, keep the money in our own pew?") and attended the first Mass of a newly ordained Institute of Christ the King priest in Belgium on 9/12/15.
What you might not have known was that six months earlier, "Monsignor" Wach had sent Fr. William Hudson to sit in choir at Bishop Fellay's 3/19/15 pontifical Mass at the dedication of St. Joseph's Church in Brussels.
I suppose on the one hand, after 15 years of GREC collaboration, "Monsignor" Wach (who joined the GREC in 2000) did not fear for his priest to hear anything injurious to his position from Bishop Fellay (Rhetorically, I wonder: Would "Monsignor" Wach have exhibited the same comfort were his priest to sit in choir and hear a sermon from Archbishop Lefebvre?).
On the other hand, what gall of Bishop Fellay to invite a priest representing a community which Archbishop Lefebvre said was betraying Tradition and founded upon compromise (not to convert him to Tradition, of course, but merely to get the two communities used to being around each other in preparation for the practical accord, for which they shall first have learned to play well in the sandbox together)!
#63: Change (The SSPX and Mother Teresa of Calcutta):
[This 2015 article was published by Non Possumus shortly before the "canonization" of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Our addition is in red font at the conclusion of this article -X]
Teresa of Calcutta at the tomb of Gandhi
On November 1st, the secondary school of Saint Teresa, of the German FSSPX, invited its students and parents to a conference on Teresa of Calcutta. The speaker was Marcus Pohl, who spent years in the house of the poor of Mother Teresa in India and runs an aid organization.
Pohl presented the life of Teresa of Calcutta, her work, her thought and her own experiences in India.
Marcus Pohl in his organization in India
Given the liberal drift of the SSPX, it is not surprising that he now organizes conferences on Mother Teresa and present [her] as a model. As a vestige of other times, in the catalogs of the Clovis editions of the French FSSPX, there is still a book - from a Dominican anti-accordist of Avrillé, by the way - entitled: "Mother Teresa of Calcutta, true or false charity?" , in which it is exposed, in the light of traditional theology, and examining in detail her life, her statements and her writings, the other side of this "icon" of the twentieth century: the refusal to convert to the true faith those she cared for, a religious relativism taken to the extreme, a new conception of evangelization that John Paul II wanted to consecrate in beatifying Mother Teresa. And this new conception of the mission could only, certainly, please the world. That was what everyone said about that religious in the SSPX until recently.
This "supra-catholic charity" of Teresa of Calcutta will be carried to the altars, precisely on the occasion of the year of neo-mercy, since Francis has expressed his desire to canonize Mother Teresa during the Year of Mercy that will begin on the 8th. December as a "sign of mercy for the world" in service to the poor.
What a coincidence!
We must know that the council of the St. Teresa School includes Maximilian Krah, who, by the way, writes in the new blog of his friend Matthias Schappi an article on fashion, which states:
The religious medium suffers from an over-emphasis about the sixth commandment ... From there arises an unhealthy prudery that makes impossible a treatment of sexuality without prejudice what brings insecure, tense and horny men ... The wide wrappers of legs with sandals of migrant, combined with raincoat, transferred their ugliness to the religious concerns. Who wants to join the ugly club?
"Without unhealthy mojigaterías", Krah, legal right arm of Mons Fellay, posing in Dubai for a photo released by himself.
Oh! But despite all this, "nothing has changed in the SSPX" ...
As for what the SSPX used to teach regarding Mother Teresa of Calcutta?
“But it is when it comes to ecumenism that we must reproach her. She is typically conciliar: for her, faith is subjective; Catholicism is good for Catholics.
“She declared, speaking of the dying persons welcomed in her home: we give them what they want according to their faith. And Bishop Jean-Michel Di Falco said: ‘Mother Teresa wishes to elp each person die according to his own religion. (…) For Catholics, priests are there to administer the last sacraments. For others, what counts is that they die at peace with themselves and with God. Mother Teresa, easily accused of ecumenism, did not wait for Vatican Council II to practice ecumenism and to lend an ear to non-Christian religions. And this behavior has not failed to earn her criticism from certain members of the clergy, who reproached her with neglecting her missionary function." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/shadows-and-light-mother-teresa-17661
#64: Change (Conciliar Ugliness - SSPX Church in Spain: Symbolic of SSPX Entry into Conciliar Church):
"Catholics are also disoriented by the triviality and even by the vulgarity that is imposed on them in places of worship in a systematic way. Everything that contributed to the beauty of the buildings and the splendor of the ceremony was called triumphalism ... Union with God is obtained through a religious and heavenly song, through a general atmosphere of liturgical action, through piety and recollection of the place, by its architectural beauty, by the fervor of the Christian community, by the nobility and the mercy of the celebrant, the symbolic decoration, the perfume of incense, and so on." -Archbishop Lefebvre (Open Letter to Confused Catholics)
That's a church?
That's an SSPX church?
Check out the freaky, wavy fence, which puts one in mind of this grotesque Wiccan "art:"
[NB: The author of the following report was "William of Norwich," who made a special appearance on the now-defunct Ignis Ardens Resistance forum to provide this information. He was a highly informed person with insider knowledge. For example, it was "William of Norwich" who blew the whistle on the sellout of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it happened. Someone subsequently compiled several files on the subject of Max Krah's arrival at the SSPX and posted them here, from which the following excerpt is taken] marranosatwork.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/krah_gate_english.pdf
posted: Nov 28 2010, 07:34 PM By William of Norwich
Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
The Timeline -
January 2009 A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.
January 20, 2009 Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”
But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.
It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch RechtsanwÇlte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.
January 19, 2009 One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”
In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a cosignature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.
Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.
In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBAGlobal programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”
Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of nonprofit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”
The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.
The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?
Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?
What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.
In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain. ENTER KRAH
Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die GrÑnen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?
Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “StasiMerkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “holocaust denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.
He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.
Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.
Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “Holocaust” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.
It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communique demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nazis,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “Nazi” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nazi,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.
Did Krah have an input into this communique? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jewish. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.
However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.
Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed
1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Freemasonry and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “antisemitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.
2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.
3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.
4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a Talmudic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.
All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.
This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.
1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jewish when he was taken into your confidence?
2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?
3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?
4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?
5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?
6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?
7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?
8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grunen?
9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?
10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?
11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?
There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction.
For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.
#66: Compromise (The SSPX and the Year of Mercy Jubilee):
On March 13, 2015 Pope Francis first announced he would declare a "Year of Mercy" extraordinary jubilee for 2016 ("extraordinary" because jubilees would normally follow a 25 year cycle, and the previous jubilee was in 2000) to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the closing of Second Vatican Council. Francis formally declared the jubilee with the papal bull of indiction Misericordiae Vultus ("The Face of Mercy") on April 11, which would run from 12/8/15 - 11/20/16.
Traditional Catholics would not normally have taken much note of such conciliar legislation (unless perhaps to view with special revulsion a papal act celebrating what Archbishop Lefebvre referred to as "the biggest disaster in the history of the Church"), except that on September 1, 2015 Pope Francis, in a letter to Cardinal Fisichella (who headed the Holy Year of Mercy), announced that as part of his Jubilee, he was extending faculties to the SSPX to hear confessions:
"A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity.
In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/pope-francis-sspxs-confessions-valid-and-licit-10330
Almost five months had passed since the promulgation of Misericordiae Vultus and the 9/1/15 letter of Pope Francis granting ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions to the SSPX.
You can well imagine that the SSPX vehemently protested against the calling of an extraordinary jubilee to commemorate the 50 year anniversary of the closing of Vatican II; that thunderous sermons were given all over the world renouncing any intention to participate in such an event, and that similar articles were proliferated throughout all SSPX websites and media outlets.
But you would imagine wrongly.
In fact, exactly the opposite had transpired during that interim period: Articles popped up on SSPX.org like this one, nuancing, distinguishing, and explaining why the SSPX WOULD participate in the Holy Year of Mercy, and why the faithful should as well:
"The occasion for the opening of the Holy Door is the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of Vatican Council II on December 8, 1965. The choice of this date to begin the Jubilee Year is the cause of the difficulty. But this circumstance does not affect the essence of the jubilee; its act, ordered to its object, remains the plenary indulgence and the sanctification of the faithful people. For this occasion or circumstance to affect the jubilee and distort it, it would be necessary for it to become the specific object or end thereof." sspx.org/en/sspxs-participation-jubilee-mercy
And in Bishop Fellay's May 24 Letter to Friends and Benefactors #84, we are told:
"Let us take this appeal to mercy seriously, as the inhabitants of Nineveh did! Let us go in search of the lost sheep, let us pray for the conversion of souls, let us perform as much as we can all the works of mercy, both material and especially the spiritual works, for there is a serious shortage of the latter….
As for us, dear brothers and sisters in the Faith, we must take advantage of this Holy Year to ask the God of mercy for an ever-deeper conversion to holiness and implore the graces and pardons of His infinite mercy.
We will prepare for the centennial of the apparitions of Our Lady in Fatima by practicing devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart and propagating it with all our strength, as she demanded. We will keep begging that her requests, particularly the consecration of Russia, will at last be properly carried out.
There is no opposition between these thoughts turned toward Mary and the Year of Mercy, on the contrary! Let us not separate what God wants to see joined: the Two Hearts of Jesus and Mary, as Our Lord explained to Sister Lucy of Fatima.
Every district of the Society will inform you of the particular works to be performed in order to benefit from all the graces that Divine Mercy will grant us during this Holy Year. And in this way we will offer as well as possible our collaboration with the merciful will of God to save all people of good will." sspx.org/en/year_of_mercy_Maradiaga_fatima_fellay_mercy
It certainly seemed as though Rome and the SSPX were playing ball:
The SSPX would bring its people and clergy into active participation with conciliar initiatives celebrating the anniversary of Vatican II, and in turn the SSPX will receive ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions for playing along.
Give and take.
The ralliement had completely avoided the doctrinal battle, and was already being concretely implemented...and nobody perceived it. Obitur Dictum: As regards the sophisms advanced by the SSPX in support of participating the the Year of Mercy, the Avrille Dominicans responded with a argument by argument rebuttal to those made in the first link above. It can be found here, and it is decisive: www.dominicansavrille.us/should-we-participate-in-the-jubilee-of-mercy/
#67: Change (GREC Lives):
In 2012, the widow of Gilbert Perol (founder of the GREC) told Radio Courtoisie that "in 2010, when the doctrinal discussions began in Rome between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X, the GREC ceased its activities, or at least the conference-debates." www.dominicansavrille.us/the-g-r-e-c/#easy-footnote-bottom-18 [See text at footnote 18]
That last little sentence fragment is important (Venenum in cauda: "The sting is in the tail"), because if it is true that the conference debates have ceased, it is manifestly false to allege that the former GREC members have ceased their activities.
Some cases in point:
On January 14-15, the Courrier de Rome (i.e., The French journal from which SiSiNoNo articles are taken) celebrated its 50th year anniversary. But the occasion was more or less a reunion of the remaining and most prominent GREC members, and pictures from FSSPXnews tell it all:
Bishop Fellay presiding
"It was Father Lorans, for the Society of Saint Pius X, who kept Bishop Fellay informed [of the GREC meetings]."
(Lelong, Fr. Michel. For a Necessary Reconciliation, p.35.)
Fr. Alain Lorans
Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard
Director of the Courrier de Rome and former GREC member "Father du Chalard (SSPX), whose support [of GREC] was as discreet as it was attentive.” (Lelong, Fr. Michel. Toward a Necessary Reconciliation, p.26)
Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray "Following the Pope’s meeting with Bishop Fellay in 2005, GREC expanded the SSPX side to include among others: a very active Fr. Célier, and
But we are well aware that "one rose does not make a spring." A single conference reunion does not necessarily imply that the GREC has been active all along.
Is there any other GREC-like activity which these men have been engaged in outside of this conference?
1. Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray: He functions as a de facto lay spokesman for the SSPX in the French Speaking world. Particularly in the French discussion forums (such as Forum Catholique where he often writes under the pseudonym "Ennemond"), he will often be found contextualizing and nuancing public opinion in favor of the ralliement when opposition seems heavy. But not limiting his activities to the French internet, he frequently passes information or submits his own pro-ralliement articles to the indultarian Rorate Coeli Blog (usually anonymously as the "Compte de Previgny"). Finally, it was Mr. Jacques-Régis du Cray who produced the sanitized Archbishop Lefebvre documentary which ran in select movie theatres (and his GREC influence accounts for cameo appearances in that documentary by traitors like Fr. Aulagnier, who had no business appearing in any real tribute to the Archbishop). Obviously, Mr. du Cray has been quite active in promoting the aims of GREC post-2010!
2. Fr. Gregoire Celier: Fr. Celier directed Fideliter, and had influence upon other SSPX media productions. He is also a prolific author, and has written books under pseudonyms which some have opined smack of gnosticism. His most damaging book was the 2007 Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, whose Foreword was written by the Freemason, Jean-Luc Maxence of the Grand Orient Lodge (and publisher and author of countless esoteric books). A critique of his book Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists by Mr. Paul Chaussee can be read here: www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/first-time-in-english-bishop-fellay's-plan/msg646134/?topicseen#msg646134 We will have much more to say about Fr. Celier in a future post. But for now, all that is necessary to point out is that his book seems to have gained influence over Bishop Fellay, whose public words on the subject of a practical accord with Rome are preceded in Fr. Celier's book.
3. Fr. Alain Lorans: Former Communications Director of the SSPX before Fr. Rostand got the job, Fr. Lorans was officially responsible for internet content, and according to Fr. Olivier Rioult (Resistance - France), worked in coordinated efforts with Jacques-Regis du Cray.
4. Bishop Fellay: We need not supply any further information here, except to note his introduction of the SSPX into tradcumenical venues (such as the Catholic Identity Conference in the USA), his pursuit of a practical accord while placing doctrine on the back burner, and his persecution of those within the Society who held to Archbishop Lefebvre's old position regarding no practical accord before the doctrinal questions were resolved (in favor of Tradition) in Rome.
But the first generation of GREC revolutionaries are no longer the only ones active!
It is now not uncommon to find "discrete but not secret" tradcumenical gatherings of SSPX/indult clergy, such as this meeting reported on by the French Medias-Press Info's Christian Lassale:
"Some priests of the FSSPX, generally quite young and without much experience, let themselves be chaperoned by the illustrious Father Matthieu Raffray of the Institute of the Good Shepherd to activate a Brotherhood bringing them all together, created during their common passage in Ecône. Called "of the Good Spirit", as opposed to the letter from deans and friendly communities [i.e., the SSPX Deans and leaders of the traditional religious communities who initially rejected the 2017 "pastoral guidelines" regulating SSPX marriages -X], which was considered "despicable", this Brotherhood was the occasion to hold a secret meeting in the Dordogne. The meeting, spread over several days, was held in the village of Montagrier (Abbé Laignelot's village) in the second half of July 2017. Daily masses were celebrated in the village church, generously opened by the Perigord Ordinary to whom all the pledges of "good spirit" had been given.
Among others, the following were present at this meeting - non-exhaustive list:
Father Matthieu RAFFRAY, Superior of the Latin American Province of the Institute of the Good Shepherd; Father Timothy of BONNAFOS, based in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Father Jean-François MOUROUX, based in Onex, Switzerland; Father Eudes-Etienne PEIGNOT, director of La Martinerie-Châteauroux; Father Nicolas CHALLAN BELVAL, stationed in Martinique; Father Benoît LAIGNELOT, stationed in Enugu, Nigeria.
After warmly welcoming the Roman opening on the issue of marriages, everyone expressed their joy at reading in the last Cor Unum (issue 117 of June 2017) Bishop Fellay's positive words on the Ecclesia Dei communities [Noted elsewhere in this thread in the post regarding Bishop Fellay's suppression of Fr. Pivert's book -X]:
"I wonder how some people envisage the "conversion of Rome", the return of the Church to its Tradition, when they carefully avoid any contact with the official Church, not to mention the Ecclesia Dei movement". (Page 5).
"The same is true of the Ecclesia Dei movements, including the Fraternity of St. Peter, where there are a number of Nicodemus, convinced that Bishop Lefebvre's analysis of Vatican II is the right one. " (Page 6).
In quoting this last passage, none of them noticed that in these words of Bishop Fellay himself, it is recognized that any canonical recognition implies a very real condition, even unwritten: once recognized by Rome, one can only adhere to the authentic struggle of Bishop Lefebvre like Nicodemus, that is, in the secret of the night and not as a thread of light, far from any microphone, of course.
Finally, the participants expressed their support for the writings of Father François Knittel - for whom the state of necessity is diminishing - a text published very officially in the journal of the General House. It seems that with Pope Francis, one of the greatest destroyers of the Church, things would be better!
Faced with this new spirit invading certain parts of the Fraternity, the superiors remain strangely silent, quite the opposite of their reaction following the letter of the deans. Symptomatic silence? One may wonder, when we know that some priests in the district of France have been authorized to write, under pseudo, in magazines of the ecclesiastical movement: they are only showing the new "good spirit".
#68: Contradiction (By Relativizing the State of Necessity, it Gives the Illusion of Receding):
In the previous post, we noted that a new generation of GREC-spirited priests from the SSPX and other rallied communities had secretly gathered at Dordogne, and that in addition to celebrating Mass together, they expressed their agreement with the writing of a certain Fr. Francois Knittel (SSPX).
What had Fr. Knittel written capable of securing the unanimous assent of this (once-)varied group?
In his Letter of Saint-Florent - June/July/August 2017, intended to defend the SSPX's use of Cardinal Mueller's new pastoral guidelines regulating SSPX marriages (which was subsequently republished on FSSPX.News under the title "Canon Law and Pastoral Theology of Marriage"), Fr. Knittel speaks of all these Roman grants, gestures, and privileges as beginning to cause the dissipation of the state of grave general spiritual necessity which had authorized the SSPX's apostolate independent (and against the will of) modernist Rome:
"In order to respond to the state of necessity that was thus created, a substitute apostolate was set up by the priests for the benefit of the faithful. This state of necessity started to recede with the Motu proprio dated July 7, 2007, in which Benedict XVI acknowledged that the Traditional Mass had never been abrogated. The decisions by Pope Francis relating to the apostolate of the priests of the SSPX accentuate this trend. Logically, the state of necessity is destined to disappear." fsspx.news/en/content/31434
Fr. Knittel is obviously confused about what, precisely, constitutes a state of necessity!
If one reads the article, you can see that his gaze (like that of Menzingen) is turned inward: The state of necessity is apparently no longer centered upon the countless souls, threatened in spiritual goods, of great importance (e.g., faith and morals), which are indispensable for salvation, and who are without hope of help from their legitimate pastors. www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
THAT is what a state of necessity is, and any objective thinker would quickly realize that, regardless of whatever gestures Rome has made toward the SSPX, that state of necessity has worsened immeasurably since Francis took the throne.
But Fr. Knittel has relativized the concept, and by turning his gaze inward, subjectivized necessity: The state of necessity for him (and the neo-SSPX) means that the SSPX does not have legitimate permission to work in the apostolate. Consequently, whatever permissions Rome grants to the SSPX, ipso facto, the state of necessity recedes!
And of course, the unspoken argument implicit in Fr. Knittel's contention that the state of necessity has begon to recede is this: We had better hurry up and get a deal with Rome (i.e., If there is no state of necessity, then we are schismatics, and our sacraments not validated upon recourse to ecclesia supplet)!
That 99.9% of the Catholic Church will remain awash in apostasy emanating from Rome and the dioceses worldwide (without exception) apparently has no bearing on whether or not the state of necessity remains: If things are (perceived to be) "good" for the SSPX, and they get their "regularization," the state of necessity is diminishing! It was precisely for these reasons that Archbishop Lefebvre, after 1988 when he knew the ill intentions of Rome, refused to come to a practical accord: If he were to do that, he would betray the entire Church, because he knew, whatever gestures Rome made, they were not made because Rome was converting, but because they desired to capture Tradition:
"That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors." sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations
But the SSPX now only gazes at itself in the mirror. It is, as someone described, the new bourgeoisie, and it has lost sight of the greater good of the Church regardless of anything it might say about "converting Rome from within."
Archbishop Lefebvre knew it was the superiors who form the inferiors, and not the other way around.
One need only review this thread to see who has been converting who!
In 2007, French District priest, Fr. Gregoire Celier (Director of Fideliter -the French equivalent of The Angelus- for 13 years) wrote a book completely subversive of the 2006 General Chapter titled "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists," in which he "fantasizes" about how a practical accord with unconverted Rome might be achieved.
The book was heavily sponsored by the French District and Fr. de Cacqueray, and consequently did much damage by undermining the 2006 General Chapter Declaration.
Interestingly, Fr. Celier's ideas seem to have been co-opted in many respects by Bishop Fellay, and used as a blueprint of sorts for the ralliement of the SSPX.
Some time after the publicity tour, an astute Frenchman, Mr. Paul Chaussee, wrote an incisive 42 page critique of Fr. Celier's subversive work.
That critique is attached as a PDF to this post, and is a must read.
It is also an interesting connection that, according to the link just provided, it was Bishop Fellay who appointed Fr. Celier as head of the Fideliter publishing house in 1994 (i.e., the year he became Superior General).
In any case, we present here the second Appendix to Mr. Paul Chaussee's 42 page critique (translated by Mr. Sean Johnson elsewhere on this forum), regarding the strange and disturbing works of Fr. Gregoire Celier, and leave readers to come to their own conclusions. Mr. Johnson's translation of Paul Chaussee's Appendix is also attached below.
FR. GREGOIRE CELIER FROM HIS WORKS
by Paul Chaussee
An overview of his works reveals who Fr. Gregory Celier was who directed the media of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X for thirteen years; what spirit animates him? And what is probably his purpose in taking a leading role in the writing of the book Benedict XVI and the traditionalists?
Here are some books that are all signed "Grégoire Celier" or a pseudonym, as if the tactics of this priest-philosopher were always to "go forward hidden".
It is the work of a scholar who has accumulated more than 300 quotations, most of which are contrary to traditional doctrine, but none of which are corrected by a reminder of the truth. Thus, in the foreground, a quotation from Archbishop Annibale Bugnini (but of course!):
"Liturgical reform is a great conquest of the Catholic Church, with important ecumenical repercussions; not only has it aroused the admiration of other Churches and Christian communities, but it also represents a kind of model for them. » (1974).
But Celier forgets to say that in 1975, we discovered with amazement that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason! In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 10, Bishop Lefebvre wrote:
"When we learn in Rome that he who was the soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we can think that he is not the only one. The veil that covers the greatest mystification of clerics and the faithful has probably begun to be torn."
A revealing omission, twenty years ago already.
This book could be signed by a progressive conciliarist or by a Protestant. The warning contains no criticisms of neo-Modernist ecumenism and there is no reference to the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI, (1928) condemning this modern ecumenism. Obviously, the author has forgotten the Apostle's precept: "I implore you... insist in time and against time, correct, correct, threaten, exhort, always with patience and instruction. " (II Timothy 4:1-2).
So how could this pernicious book be allowed to be published when it was lying by omission?
1993 - Grégoire CELIER, The School of the Barruel Papers – The Future of an Illusion. GRICHA Publishing.
In this booklet90, we recognize the main arguments that Paul Sernine [one of Fr. Celier’s pseudonyms] used in 2003 in The Straw and the Sycamore (see below). The texts are identical. Sernine has copied in full, word for word (except for rare minor editorial corrections), the three paragraphs "The silence of the Magisterium", "The intellectual impossibility" and "The argument of prescription" which, unique arguments of Celier's demonstration, become the three central chapters of Sernine's book.
Finally, it is important to note two things:
-On the 4th page of the cover, there is this warning: "This brochure is not distributed to the public and should be considered as a purely private study; please do not mention it or its author in a publication. Grégoire CELIER. Address: CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 Paris Cedex 16, France "
-The logo of Éditions GRICHA is a black cat with a bristly coat and all claws outside; it is surrounded by the phrase "At night all cats are grey." [Strange, isn't it?]
1994 - Gregoire CELIER, The Torn Church - A Call to "Catholics Ecclesia Dei". Editions FIDELITER, Eguelshardt, (April) 1994. Éditions Gricha, 1994. Address given for sending "criticisms, remarks and additional information": CFH, B.P. 337-16, 75767 PARIS.
This work is more a polite polemic with the "Ralliés" than a defense of Tradition in liturgy. Many of the texts cited in defense of traditional liturgy would have been better used in the book The Ecumenical Dimension of Liturgical Reform. It should also be noted that in this book - disappointing as a whole - G. Celier shows that Rome had no intention of granting the "Ralliés" the freedom to practice and teach Tradition, but that the freedom granted was strictly limited. He seems to have forgotten this lesson by talking to Mr. Pichon.
On the same page, the author would like to thank his "fellow philosophy teachers Alain-Marc, Daniel, etc., twelve people designated by their sole first name. No patronymic; it is assumed that it is the "kittens" that Mr. Celier does not want to compromise by revealing their identity. [Strange precaution, isn't it, for a 36-year-old teacher?]
This book, which presents itself as a dialogue between the master and his disciple, is a kind of invitation to philosophy and opens with this mysterious (if not esoteric) exercise:
I used to have a little game, I liked to turn around and crawl into my brain. I think you know the game I'm talking about? I'm talking about this game called "going crazy". This little game is fun. Just close your eyes, it's impossible to lose. I'm here, I'm coming too. Let yourself go, we'll go to the other side. J. M. [Jim Morrison]
[Strange, isn't it?]
To avoid being questioned by the uninitiated, Celier warns them:
"We must be careful not to identify the author with one of the protagonists in the dialogue, or even with their meeting. If he had spoken for himself, the editor would probably have said something else. But he preferred to give his characters a certain freedom of tone and thought, so that he did not necessarily take responsibility for all the statements made in their conversations."
The free Journal of Serge de Beketch (n° 55 of 30.12.1994) confirms that Gregoire Celier is a priest, a professor of philosophy, and that the title The Mortal God refers to man.
But the worst is revealed by the careful reading of the book: when it is closed, one wonders what is Catholic about the philosophy to which Celier wants to introduce his young readers. When, after many detours, he finally addresses the question of God, "To be supreme", it is to make an agnostic response (p. 275) and leave everyone to their own research (p. 290). As a Catholic priest, he should have at least referred to the Revelation by indicating the beginning of the paths that would allow us to approach it without getting lost in the maze of secondary questions and false philosophies, but he does not do so. As a Catholic professor, he could have referred to works of good popularization by the Thomists, but he only quotes practically pagan, or naturalistic, or skeptical authors, in short, bad authors whose reading only leads to dead ends where some saints are lost: Augustine, Thomas, Gregory the Great... In this respect, the appendix speaks for itself.
The two reviews in Le Sel de la terre (No. 12, Spring 1995, pp. 170-182) reveal many other points of criticism, but I limit myself here to what made me classify this book as useless and even bad.
2003 - Paul Sernine [Fr. Celier’s alias], The Straw and the Sycamore -About Gnosis, Éditions Servir. In his Warning, the Publisher (by Nouvelle revue Certitude n° 13, we know that it is Fr. William Tanoüarn, but why, in this book, does he also hide his identity?) announces the thesis p. 7 : By "the love of truth" (sic!), Paul Sernine will refute with competence and method the characteristic statement of the Barruel Papers and in particular of Mr Etienne Couvert: "In any error, "there is a key..., and it is "gnosis" (Gnosis against the faith, p. 161) "Now if we open Etienne Couvert's book to check the quotation and its context, we find neither before nor after the three words "in error" and the following "there is a key... and it is the "gnosis" on p. 161. "This is what we read on page 161, in the chapter Gnosis and Romanticism, (this is the case of Victor Hugo):
"From that moment on [after receiving Lamennais' teaching], Victor Hugo is completely Gnostic and worshipper of Satan. He says he is initiated by revelations from below: the mouth of shade in Contemplations, the spectrum or sea kiss, the nocturnal Archangel from which he draws surprising, obscure, black, absurd things... For those who do not possess the Key. But there is a Key... and it is the "Gnosis"".
Let us understand that, from "revelations from below, Hugo draws surprising things..., obscure, for the one who does not possess the key, that is to say who has not been initiated into Gnosis". To this unmistakable sentence, Sernine adds the words "In all error" and makes it the only revealing thesis, the only statement he repeats tirelessly. However, the meaning of Mr. Couvert's complete sentence is very different; it is therefore a falsification of a quotation by adding these three words; they have been regularly added each time this quotation was repeated - about ten times - and it is therefore not an error but a process. This is what the Fr. Tanoüarn, Publisher of this book, calls (p. 15) a "model methodology in Catholic science.”
"Whether one criticizes Etienne Couvert for judgments that are too categorical or unfair, for a certain systematization, for a certain error on specific points, the thing is legitimate provided that one provides proof. But is it acceptable to try to disqualify him by giving him, on ten occasions, a quote that is not his own? "(Arnaud de Lassus in Action familiale et scolaire n° 171, p. 64).
This repeated falsification is enough to disqualify its author and even the publisher who makes it his own in his Warning (p. 7). We think that this is such a serious and gross fault that it was only allowed by Providence to show us the great danger threatening priests and faithful of the Fraternity, a danger which is not the one denounced by Sernine91 but which would rather be Sernine himself.
2005 - Father Michel BEAUMONT (alias Grégoire Celier) in Fideliter n° 163, January 2005, (p. 20-25), article "Reflecting as a Christian on current politics" in which Abbé Beaumont questions himself on the adaptation of principles to the "new political realities" in a dechristianized society:
"If, under the current globalization, any country that has become a mere territory of the "global village" is inserted into a political entity where Catholics are very clearly in the minority, how would the classical doctrine of the Popes asking that a predominantly Catholic country recognize the kingdom of Christ in its political institutions still be possible? » (p. 23).
Father Celier thus notes that "undeniably new political and social realities have appeared" (p. 22) and he suggests, through a very skillful questioning, that the doctrine valid until Pius XII, would no longer be possible today, and that it is therefore "necessary that Catholics involved in politics (...) do themselves the work of reflection that the popes once proposed to them. » (p. 20).
In short, following the evolution of the world, the traditional doctrine of the Church would be outdated today and to be reviewed by the laity!
However, the encyclical Quas Primas (1925) states unambiguously that
"the empire of Christ Jesus is, in strict truth, the universality of the human race. There is no need to make any distinction between individuals, families and States. (...) Governors and magistrates have an obligation, as well as individuals, to worship Christ publicly and obey his laws."
This is the universal principle arising from the hypostatic union.
Celier's question, which strongly suggests his answer, corresponds to the 58th condemned proposal (the truth is not immutable) of the anti-modernist decree Lamentabili (approved by Saint Pius X). And to say that we must formulate a new doctrine adapted to our time is the 59th proposal condemned by the same decree. Father Beaumont-Celier thus illustrates a typical case of modernism as described by Saint Pius X in Pascendi:
"Everything is wanted by them... Such a page of their work could be signed by a Catholic; turn the page, you think you are reading a rationalist. » (§ 20).
Alas! What has become of the rigorous censors of the past, whose Nihil obstat and Imprimatur inspired confidence?
The ANTICONSPIRACY of CELIER-SERNINE [Fr. Celier] seems to have been inspired by its publisher, the Fr. Tanoüarn, himself a disciple in the matter of his friend Alain de Benoist, author of the study Psychology of Conspiracy (see supra p. 8 and note 19).
Seen from above, anti-conspiracy is a consequence of naturalism that results in contradicting the "struggle of the two cities" (Saint Augustine, The City of God, Book XIV, chapter XXVIII) and thus denying the duty to choose the standard of Christ under which to place and fight (Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, § 136 et seq.). The reality of the struggle of the TWO STANDARDS or TWO CITES is recalled by Pope Leo XIII in the introduction to his encyclical Humanum Genus. He taught that the highly organized International Society of Freemasons aims to ruin the Holy Catholic Church, to "destroy from top to bottom all the religious and social discipline that has arisen from Christian institutions and to substitute a new one for their ideas, and whose fundamental principles and laws are borrowed from naturalism".92 To protect peoples from this poison that infects society, the Pope first enjoined the bishops to "Tear off the mask she wears and show her as she is." Then, "Teach your peoples, make them aware of the tricks used by these sects to seduce men..." Finally, "Make the masses acquire the knowledge of religion, expose the elements of the sacred principles that constitute Christian philosophy (...) in order to heal the intellectual diseases of men... "93
Unfortunately, since the works of Crétineau-Joly published by Pope Pius IX, we know that the strategy of the Masonic sect is to ruin the Church from within, infiltration and internal recruitment have not ceased. In 1929, it was known that Cardinal Rampolla was a Freemason, fortunately excluded from the 1903 conclave by the Austrian veto. In 1938, the French episcopate had seventeen "Brothers" but in 1987, the former Grand Master Michel Baroin, declared that there were 64 French bishops in the Grand Orient of France. Finally, in 1981 a search of a Roman lodge uncovered a list of personalities affiliated with Freemasonry, including a significant number of cardinals and bishops, including Cardinal Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops94.
The current crisis of the Church has its root causes, not only in the Council, but in liberalism and neo-Modernism of the mid-20th century. And these errors were rooted and developed in the hierarchy by the infiltration of liberals, freemasons and modernists, infiltrations of which we were warned in the 19th century and which Saint Pius X observed and fought. The last Council is only the manifestation of triumphant neo-Modernism in the Vatican with Freemasonry.
Since we know this strategy and its disastrous effects, why are we not more vigilant in choosing the leaders for this strategic position that is the Fraternity's media management in France?
In Gregoire Celier, we have several characters:
-The classical traditionalist priest, who restores and serves the Saint-Nicolas chapel in Compiègne, and who makes a good impression on his faithful;
-The Fr. Celier director of Fideliter and Clovis where we find books of all qualities, good, mediocre, and even bad by naturalism, but where there are no books dealing with the fight against the enemies of the Church.
-The professor of modern philosophy of the mortal god, who hides his priestly state and professes a pernicious philosophy;
-The polemicist Paul Sernine who, anti-antignostic of bad faith and "anti-conspiracy", is the objective ally of the enemies of the Church;
-Father Beaumont, modernist collaborator of Fideliter.
In short, this man is sometimes an irreproachable traditionalist priest, sometimes an unreliable modernist, which, according to Saint Pius X, characterizes the modernist:
"Such a page of their work could be signed by a Catholic; turn the page, you think you are reading a rationalist" (Pascendi, § 20). We have just seen that the writings of Father Gregoire Celier should only be read with great caution. Was he sincere in his choices, or was he rather skillful subversive? We will not judge that. We only noticed that, in the struggle to defend the faith and the Kingdom of Christ, this priest was not our ally but our adversary, and we then (in 2000) informed his superiors, without effect, alas!
Nevertheless, in imitation of Saint Paul, we had to "support the false brothers" (II Cor 11:26 and Gal 2:4). In this case, this "false brother" was the priest of the Brotherhood who pretended to inform but skillfully practiced misinformation, a weapon of war very well described by Vladimir Volkoff. "False brother" is obviously not an insult, but the biblical term used by the Apostle to designate those who, although authentic brothers, are "sons according to the flesh", slaves of form and letter, and who make the "sons of the promise" who live according to the spirit suffer. Thus Abel was persecuted by Cain, Isaac by Ishmael, Jacob by Esau, Joseph by his brothers, etc.95. The false brothers, very zealous, "filter the midge and swallow the camel". And if we cannot avoid their "persecution", if it is not in our power to prevent them from harming them, we must suffer them well because God allows them. But those who have this power, please remember that preventing evil is also their duty.
Endnotes: 90 It was reproduced in Nouvelle revue Certaintitudes (Abbé G. de Tanoüarn) n° 4, 2000, pp. 69-76. 91 We published an exhaustive review of this book in Cahiers de Chiré n° 19, DPF 2004, p.129-153. 92 "Our final goal is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution, the annihilation forever of Catholicism and even of the Christian idea...". Permanent instruction of the High Sale in 1819 quoted by Crétineau-Joly 93 Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus (1884), § 47-49. 94 See Introïbo No. 13 (1976) p. 2 (A.N.P. rue Delaâge, Angers). - Under Banner No. 19 (1988) p. 20-21. A Freemason in charge of choosing bishops obviously explains the orientation of episcopates in general and the mediocrity of the bishops of France, manifested particularly by their hatred of the traditional mass. 95 "Supporting false brothers" is, with patience, classified by Saint Benedict as the fourth degree of humility in his rule (chapter 7). Cf. comment by Dom Jean de Monléon, O.S.B., in The 12 Degrees of Humility
In his Christmas (2013) conferences to the SSPX brothers in Flavigny, Fr. Pfluger (then First Assistant to the Superior General) laid out the plan (*) to begin the conversion of Rome by first intensifying contacts with the "conservative" conciliar clergy:
"The reform is to work, to circulate “in capite et in membris” [of head and of members] simultaneously. In capite, is in relation to the Pope and to Rome and it has consisted in the doctrinal discussions and our efforts which have not been crowned with success for the moment. In membris is in our relations with the faithful, with parishes and the conservative clergy. We must now intensify contact in membris." www.therecusant.com/fr-pfluger-jan14
This explains the explosion of tradcumenical conciliar collaboration taking place since throughout the world: The visits of Cardinal Brandmuller and Bishop Schneider to the SSPX seminaries; the joint participation at public conferences (e.g., Catholic Identity Conference) and private meetings (e.g., that described at Dordogne between SSPX and Ecclesia Dei priests), and various visits of Bishops (e.g., Bishop Huounder in Switzerland, etc.):
Fr. Pfluger continues:
"The Bishop [Fellay?] has said that [it] is numbers that speak...People always do the same stupid things! Change will come from the increase of these initiatives and by their meeting and union...The current problem is either to open up to others or to fall back on oneself. So how do we overcome this crisis?" (Ibid).
That is to say, it is by a grass roots effort that Rome will slowly, slowly convert, from the bottom up.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre share that position?
Did he believe, at and after the time of the 1988 consecrations, that "working from within," from the bottom up, was a viable strategy for restoring the Church, and bringing Rome back to Tradition?
On September 6, 1990, he said otherwise:
"Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing, I could have protected neither the faithful nor the seminarians."sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations
This thread itself evinces the wisdom of the Archbishop's position, as its contents are but the ill fruits of Bishop Fellay's rejection of it (showing quite clearly on which side the conversion has been transpiring).
(*): Whether this was truly a genuine (albeit ill-founded) plan to bring about a grassroots conversion of Rome, or merely a convenient pretext to excuse and justify a practical accord, we do not here judge. To accept it as such is to give a heavy benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, for the sake of the present argument, we will take Fr. Pfluger at his word, and compare his thoughts to those of Archbishop Lefebvre for the sake of those who would advance Fr. Pfluger's "strategy" as the true motive.
In Bishop Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73 of 10/23/08, Bishop Fellay restated the purpose of the SSPX's two preconditions for entering into doctrinal discussions with modernist Rome:
"From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication."archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf
And according to SSPX mythology, these two preconditions for sitting down to doctrinal discussions were fulfilled, in the 2007 promulgation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, and the 2009 decree of the Congregation for Bishops remitting the "excommunication" of the four bishops.
But was it really true? Had the SSPX received an "unequivocal" satisfaction of its requests?
In order to ascertain whether Rome's actions were "unequivocal," one must first be able to compare and contrast that which was requested, with that which was granted.
A. What was requested regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?
With regard to the Traditional Latin Mass, the request was made by Bishop Fellay directly to Pope Benedict XVI, during a personal audience of 8/29/05:
"Finally, we expressed our requests: that hostility towards the Tradition, which makes traditional Catholic life (is there any other?) practically impossible in the conciliar Church, be changed. We asked that this be done by granting full liberty to the Tridentine Mass..." sspx.org/en/bishop-fellays-meeting-pope-benedict-xvi
B. What was granted regarding the Traditional Latin Mass?
Summorum Pontificum places several conditions upon priests saying the traditional Mass:
"by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following: The conditions for the use of this Missal laid down by the previous documents Quattuor Abhinc Annos and Ecclesia Dei are now replaced as follows:
-Article 2 states only priests without a congregation can celebrate the true Mass without permission (and even then, not for the Easter Triduum);
-Article 3 says members of religious communities cannot say the true Mass without permission of their major superiors;
-Article 4 allows for some spontaneous attendance of private traditional Masses, but they are apparently not to be announced;
-Article 5 says the TLM is limited to parishes where groups requesting it are "stable," and under the governance of the bishop per Can. 392, avoiding discord in the parish; in churches other than parishes, the rector bust grant permission;
-Article 6 says the readings may be proclaimed in the vernacular (at the altar, or from the pulpit? No answer is given);
Obviously, that which was granted does not correspond to that which was requested.
Nobody, therefore, could objectively conclude that the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum represents an "unequivocal" action in favor of Tradition.
On the contrary, Summorum Pontificum is a classic example of equivocation.
The reality is that after declaring the TLM had never been abrogated, Summorum Pontificum effectively abrogated it, not merely by these restrictive conditions, but by declaring that the Novus Ordo is the "ordinary" rite of the Roman Church, and the TLM an "extraordinary" form of the Roman Mass:
That which Rome says wasfree is now demoted and restricted!
How is that an unequivocal action in favor of Tradition?
#72: Compromise ("Unequivocal" Signs: The "Excommunications"):
Unlike the case of the first precondition (i.e., "the traditional Mass for all priests"), where the equivocation was discovered by comparing the incongruity between that which was requested and that which was granted, in the case of the second precondition (i.e., "the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication"), the equivocation is contained within the request itself:"From the beginning when Rome approached us and proposed some solutions, that is, at the beginning of 2001, we clearly stated that the manner in which Church authorities were treating the problems raised by those who desired to attempt the experience of Tradition with Rome did not inspire confidence in us. Logically we had to expect to be treated in like manner once the issue of our relationship with Rome would have been settled. Since that time, and in order to protect ourselves, we have been asking for concrete actions which would unequivocally show Rome’s intentions towards us: the traditional Mass for all priests, and the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication."archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf But the SSPX has always maintained that the "excommunications" were invalid, and therefore non-existent. Consequently, what should have been requested was not a "withdrawal" of the "excommunications," but a declaration of nullity (since Rome cannot "withdraw" something which does not exist).
Conversely, to request to "withdraw" something, is to acknowledge its existence.
A "withdrawal" (or "lifting") by Rome, therefore, logically represents a reaffirmation of the juridical validity of the excommunications: That which was declared in 1988 was right and just, but from an (alleged) sense of mercy, we are "remitting" the penalties (i.e., rescinding a just and valid penalty).
A "declaration of nullity," on the other hand, expresses a very different reality.
It would represent an implicit acknowledgement of fault and injustice on the part of Rome, and simultaneously, an acknowledgement of that which the SSPX had always maintained: That the "excommunications" were never valid in the first place.
Consequently, Rome's acceding to the SSPX's request to "withdraw" the "excommunications" is certainly not an "unequivocal" sign of Rome's goodwill toward the Society (and the proof of Rome's ill will are the lingering "excommunications" of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer).
If one reads the official declaration "remitting" the "excommunications" from the Congregation for Bishops, the entire context of the decree is one of an extension of mercy to the SSPX: "You were legitimately excommunicated, but in order to get you to sign an accord, we will 'remit' the penalty."
It practically says so in as many words:
"His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration.
This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division.
Menzingen would have you believe a "withdrawal" of the excommunications can only be interpreted as a per se sign of Rome's good will.
But for Rome, this is but a means to an end: A "regularized" SSPX is one subject to conciliar authority (Personal Prelature notwithstanding), and therefore it will be able to exert a much more direct and deleterious influence upon Tradition:
"Little by little we must expect other steps...However, we must not be in a hurry. What is important is that in their hearts there no longer be rejection. Communion found again in the Church has an internal dynamism of its own that will mature." archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/rome_sspx_campos_part_2.htm
Consequently, it seems clear that Rome's acceding to Bishop Fellay's request to "withdraw" (but not "nullify") is far from an "unequivocal" sign.
#73: Compromise (The "Dialogue of the Deaf"):
"THESE ARE WHAT WE CALL VERY DANGEROUS PROPOSALS"
"Because what is dangerous is their effects. These proposals tend to push the superiors of the Society to engage in discussions that will quickly become negotiations where, by nature, one must concede one thing to obtain or preserve another thing deemed preferable. In this case, with interlocutors of bad "faith" - remember what Archbishop Lefebvre said - we have much more to lose than to gain, and because we have nothing to give up, any concession is then a loss. This is proven by all of the agreements of the Ecclesia Dei rallies.
However, this fact escapes most of the faithful who do not understand what neo-Modernism is (an almost incurable disease of the intelligence and soul from which the Pope himself is suffering), they will fantasize about peace, unity and reconciliation, and aspire so much to these "agreements" that they will forget prudence and patience and come to accuse our superiors of lacking diplomacy, being too demanding or even betraying them by sectarianism! And these "faithful", more impatient than faithful, will abandon the fraternity to join the rallies of the Good Shepherd or Saint Peter who await them with open arms, all abandoning the doctrinal struggle to be at peace with Rome." -Paul Chaussee, "Critical Analysis" (of Fr. Celier's book "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists"), p. 26 www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/first-time-in-english-bishop-fellay's-plan/
The presumption underlying the two preconditions to sitting down to doctrinal discussions all along (ad extra), was that only a Rome actively working to return to Tradition could unequivocally concede perfect freedom to the true Mass, and declare the excommunications null. But as we discussed in the previous two posts, that is not what transpired. Instead, Rome was able to formulate declarations which constrained and demoted the true Mass, and reaffirmed the legitimacy of the 1988 "excommunications" (even as it "remitted" them). Consequently, an SSPX which was seeking unequivocal proofs of Rome's willingness and desire to return to Tradition ought to have declared those preconditions unsatisfied, and refused to proceed to doctrinal discussions.
In such measure as Rome's equivocal declarations implied a refusal to render the signs of goodwill the SSPX was looking for, doctrinal discussions would seem, on the surface, to be a "dialogue of the deaf," with each side still committed to its prior positions, as Bishop Williamson explained:
“I think that will end up as a dialogue of the deaf. The two positions are absolutely irreconcilable. 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are irreconcilable. Either those who say 2+2=4 renounce the truth and agree that 2+2=5 — that is, the SSPX abandons the truth, which God forbids us to do — or those who say 2+2=5 convert and return to the truth. Or the two meet halfway and say that 2+2=4-1/2. That’s wrong. Either the SSPX becomes a traitor or Rome converts or it’s a dialogue of the deaf.” blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/01/19/bishop-williamson-says-vatican-sspx-talks-dialogue-of-the-deaf/
Rome surely understood this, but from their perspective, there was still a chance the SSPX would decide 2+2 could equal 4.5.
But that didn't really matter: Rome was going through the motions toward a pre-ordained end. After pretending it had conceded the SSPX's two preconditions, and then entertained two years of doctrinal discussions (the results of which it considered mostly unimportant, except insofar as it strengthened the bonds between the Romans and SSPX), it was ready for the SSPX to consider an offer.
Only a few months after the conclusion of the discussions (of which Bishop de Galarreta told us the Romans would hear nothing of the SSPX's arguments), Bishop Fellay announced that the SSPX had received a (secret) "doctrinal preamble" which was an offer for regularization, and a few months after that, convened a gathering of all the major superiors in Albano, Italy to consider the offer.
Six months after that Albano convocation, Bishop Fellay signed the preamble (more commonly known as the "April 15 Doctrinal Declaration") the day after being implored by the three other bishops not to.
Now look what just happened here:
Somehow, Bishop Fellay and the SSPX went from discussions to negotiations!
And how did that happen?
By agreeing to sit down with the enemy to "dialogue" in the first place, despite the unfulfilled preconditions (the mere fact of which demonstrated Rome was still the enemy).
Recall Mr. Paul Chaussee's observation in the introductory comments to this entry:
"These proposals tend to push the superiors of the Society to engage in discussions that will quickly become negotiations where, by nature, one must concede one thing to obtain or preserve another thing deemed preferable."
"In this case, with interlocutors of bad "faith" - remember what Archbishop Lefebvre said - we have much more to lose than to gain, and because we have nothing to give up, any concession is then a loss. This is proven by all of the agreements of the Ecclesia Dei rallies."
But remember, this rapprochement with apostate Rome is all part of what Archbishop Lefebvre called "Operation Suicide," whereas the SSPX is only mortally wounded.
It needs to finish the job.
Consequently, Fr. Pagliarani has chased down the modernists to resume negotiations:
"According to the SSPX, “The Holy See says the same when it solemnly declares that no canonical status can be established for the Society until after the signing of a doctrinal document.” Therefore, everything impels the Society to resume theological discussions with the awareness that the Good Lord does not necessarily ask the Society to convince its interlocutors, but rather to bear unconditional witness to the faith in the sight of the Church.” www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/doctrine-remains-problem-in-relations-sspx-affirms-after-vatican-meeting-32527
Fr. Pagliarani is telling Rome he wants to negotiate another doctrinal declaration, and he is content to enter into pluralism.
I have no doubt he will receive one (and it won't really matter what it says): Once the pen hits paper, the coup d'grace (decapitation) will be simultaneous, and the body will no longer tremble.
There will be Te deum's sung all over the world, but they will only be celebrating the final annihilation of Tradition and the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre
#74: Compromise (Doctrine Comes Second):
In June/2012, Bishop Fellay gave an interview to DICI in which he explained his priorities regarding relations with Rome:
"We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/rome-sspx-important-interview-with-sspx.html
For the Superior General of Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX, doctrine was a "secondary problem!"
Obviously, this is in stark contrast to Archbishop Lefebvre's post-consecratory position:
"I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_II/1988-11.htm
Note that in the interview of Bishop Fellay, he is responding to the contradiction between his position and that of Lefebvre's, and attempting to justify that contradiction on the alleged "change in Rome."
We have already rebutted that notion in posts #5, 23, 57, and elsewhere.
#75: Contradiction (95%):
On May 11, 2001 Bishop Fellay gave an interview to the Swiss newspaper La Liberté, in which the following exchange transpired:
Bishop Fellay: "But some bishops rightly perceive in the freedom granted to the former Mass a questioning of the post-conciliar reforms." La Liberté: "Questioning that you continue to wish for?" Bishop Fellay: "This gives the impression that we reject everything about Vatican II. However, we keep 95% of it. It is more to a spirit that we are opposed to, to an attitude towards change as a postulate: everything changes in the world, so the Church must change.
Was this the position of Archbishop Lefebvre? Did he believe there were only a few problems with Vatican II, which were in any case limited more to a spirit of the Council, rather than the Council documents?
To advance that notion would be completely ridiculous, in the face of a veritable litany of sermons and interviews, of which the following would be representative of Lefebvre's thought on Vatican II (and which runs directly contrary to Bishop Fellay's statement above):
"Vatican II is profoundly wrong. This fight between the Church and the liberals and modernism is the fight over Vatican II. It is as simple of that. And the consequences are far-reaching.
The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism...So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution." archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm
In the summer of 2009, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais had just completed writing a 140 page masterpiece, analyzing the mind and thinking of Pope Benedict XVI titled Faith Imperiled by Reason (of which the entire document is attached here: Faith-Imperiled-by-Reason.pdf (623.29 KB)), which roundly exposed the Hegelian philosophical errors that had infected Benedict since his early days as a priest, and consequently how the "thesis + antithesis = synthesis" accounted for liberalism in theology.
Perhaps the clearest example of this Hegelial "synthesizing" in action are Benedict XVI's plans for the Roman Missal. Already in 2003, he had implied a future synthesis of the two rites in a letter to a German college professor:
Moreover, in the letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum, the "synthesizing" continued, with Benedict XVI announcing he would like to see elements of the old usage "enriched" with elements of the new:
It was necessary to provide this digression, in order that the reader clearly perceive the destructive force of "the traditional" Benedict XVI's corrupted intellect, because in what has become known as the "hermeneutic of continuity," Benedict XVI had proposed to apply this Hegelian hermeneutic of reconciling opposites to the entire conciliar and post-conciliar reform, which would effectively hide or mask the doctrinal deviations of the past 55-60 years, and through synthesis, demonstrate a perverted and false "continuity."
Consequently, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's book was a tremendous service to the Church, and a bulwark against the progression of conciliar corruption. That being the case, one would have expected the SSPX to give it worldwide publicity, publish it in multiple languages, and shout its contents from the rooftops.
But alas, this was 2009, in the era of ralliement, and that kind of publicity was reserved for books tending in the opposite direction (e.g., The book tours organized for Fr. Celier's "Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists" by the French District recounted in post #69). With Benedict showing so much "tradition," how could the SSPX publish a book irrefutable demonstrating, exposing, and refuting his rank liberalism? What would be the consequences for the ralliement? Why, Pope Benedict might be led to believe that there was resistance within the SSPX to being "synthesized" into conciliar "conservatives!
The result was death by silence. So far as I am aware, the book was not actively suppressed, as in the case of Fr. Pivert's book (discussed in post #38 of this thread). But with the savaging of Bishop Williamson in full swing at the time of its publication, taking action against yet another SSPX bishop may have seemed perhaps too vulgar and risky a display of power. And what would happen if it induced Bishop Tissier to "team up" with Bishop Williamson? That could set the ralliement back decades! Best to just let Bishop Tissier do his writing, but give it no fanfare. It was, after all, an intellectual work. Few would read it. There were no pictures. Soon enough, it would fade from memory in all but a few staunch Lefebvrists, whom the Society desired to purge from its ranks and pews anyway.
But it was less than three years later, after the failed (?) doctrinal discussions of 2009-2011, the SSPX had received a secret "doctrinal preamble" which, among several other odious provisions, asked the SSPX to consent to what was essentially the very same "hermeneutic of continuity" rejected by Bishop Tissier, and the SSPX as a whole in former times (For example, see this pre-2012 memory-holed article titled "Hermeneutic of the Hermeneutic of Continuity", originally available here: www.sspxseminary.org/component/content/article/6/502.html, but fortunately retained here: tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/08/hermeneutic-of-hermeneutic-of.html, which is well worth taking the time to read).
That preamble (more commonly known as the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration) contained these provision:
"The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated.
The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium."www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bp-fellay-april-15th-declaration-do-you-know-whats-in-it/
And with a stroke of the pen, Bishop Fellay had accepted Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity."
Subsequent protestations to the contrary are devoid of value, because actions speak louder than words.
Neither does it matter that, upon seeing the ensuing furor and division which had arisen within the ranks of the SSPX, Benedict rejected Bishop Fellay's signature, and presented him a counter-offer he knew the bishop must reject (i.e., so as to give Bishop Fellay the appearance of being the one doing the rejecting, and therefore still traditional, ,in order to preserve his authority: Rome did not want to lose its man at the forthcoming General Chapter a few months down the road, and endanger the planned ralliement).
What matters is not that, by Rome's rejection, this Doctrinal Declaration and its "hermeneutic of continuity" failed to become official SSPX policy, but that as Fr. Cottier wrote upon the fall of Campos,
Bishop Fellays signature showed incontrovertibly that indeed, there had been a "maturation," and that there was no longer any "rejection."
100 articles to the contrary will not be able to hide the act of his signature to the Doctrinal Declaration, because once again, actions speak louder than words.
Obitur Dictum: Shortly after the 2009 publication of Bishop Tissier's Faith Imperiled by Reason, he published another slightly larger work on the same subject, but more focused on the Pope's theology, called The Strange Theology of Benedict XVI. That book has not been translated into English, but a summary of it by Don Curzio Nitoglia can be machine translated here: www.doncurzionitoglia.com/monstissier_falsa_teologia_bxvi.htm
#77: Contradiction (The Danger of Schism):
In April/2014, Fr. Michel Simoulin wrote an article titled Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance. It was more or less a collection of justifications for chasing after a practical accord, regardless of the state of modernist Rome. One of the arguments adduced by Fr. Simoulin was an alleged danger of schism:
"And now we must open our eyes to another danger, that is not hypothetical, but very real: that of no longer wishing to return to our legitimate place among the societies recognized by Rome, of losing the desire for the Church and for Rome. No longer desiring a normal relation with Rome and the Church is a shadow of the schismatic spirit."sspx.ca/en/news-events/news/avoiding-false-spirit-resistance-3764
But Archbishop Lefebvre never expressed such worries. Quite the opposite, in fact. In an interview with Fideliter one year after the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre responded to a question on this very point:
"4: Danger of schism?
Question: Are you not afraid that in the end, when the good Lord will have called you to Him, little by little the split will grow wider and we will find ourselves being confronted with a parallel Church alongside what some call the "visible Church"?
Archbishop Lefebvre: This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church." archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm
Thus, for Fr. Simoulin, resistance can only continue for so long before becoming schismatic.
Fortunately for us, St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre did not agree.
#78: Compromise (Eroding Conditions - Part II: From 4 Bishops to 1?):
In post #28, we saw that the SSPX 2012 General Chapter has produced a list of three allegedly absolutely essential conditions (and three merely "desirable" conditions, which means they were no conditions at all), to be fulfilled before executing a canonical agreement with unconverted Rome. We saw that already by 2017, with the acceptance of the new "pastoral guidelines" regulating SSPX marriages, the second of the three "absolutely essential" conditions (i.e., Retaining current sacramental practice, including marriage) had been voluntarily sacrificed. Subsequently, we saw in post #33 that the two remaining (allegedly) absolutely essential conditions had been replaced by a single new absolutely essential condition: To survive "as we are."
So in the space of just a few short years, the Society had gone from complete freedom for integral Tradition, to a state of bartering for it on the basis of 6 conditions, which were really only three conditions, one of which was soon jettisoned to reduce the operative conditions to two, and which was eventually further whittled down to a solitary purely defensive condition to survive "as we are."
The reader of this thread can decide for himself whether the SSPX has also surrendered this lone remaining condition as well.
But returning to the original three 2012 "absolutely essential" conditions, it is disturbing to see the diplomatic weakness evident in what the SSPX was willing to concede in condition three: "3. The guarantee of at least one bishop." [Not surprisingly, the SSPX has also memory-holed yet another piece of evidence of compromise, as this page is no longer up: sspx.org/en/SSPX_FAQs/sspx_2012_general_chapter.htm However, the conditions are preserved here: www.therecusant.com/2012chapter-six-conditions]
Stephen Fox, in his e-book "Is this Operation Suicide" comments on this concession:
In defense of this foolish condition/concession, the SSPX championed an article by Brian Mershon, in which he gives the SSPX rationale for this condition:
"In 1988, Rome in practice did not act according to this commitment and gave the Archbishop reasonable grounds for concluding that the promise of a bishop had not been and would not in any reasonable time frame be met. All the Chapter does here is repeat the same requirement of Archbishop Lefebvre. They do not in any way suggest that their action would differ from his if, in fact, the Roman authorities of today repeated the behavior of those in 1988 (recognizing that one of them is the same person, the present Holy Father)." archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/wrong_or_right_conditions_for_the_sspxs_future10-2-2012.htm
There are a number of problems with Mr. Mershon's defense, the biggest of which seems to be a loss of historical context surrounding the episcopal consecrations: Why does he think that after originally requesting a single bishop from Rome, the Archbishop ended up consecrating four? The answer is because what caused him to consecrate against the Pope's "no" was because Rome's stalling tactics caused him to discern that Rome was not acting in good faith.
In other words, so long as the benefit of the doubt regarding Rome's intentions toward Tradition and the SSPX could be plausibly defended, the Archbishop could be satisfied with just one bishop: A Rome well-disposed toward Tradition could always give them another when needed. But a Rome ill-disposed toward Tradition, which was simply waiting for him to die (and Tradition with it), called for another strategy altogether. It called for "Operation Survival," whereby multiple consecrations would preserve the principle of continuity and perpetuity of Tradition.
So historical context provides the explanation (and necessity) of Archbishop Lefebvre's change in strategy, and the number of bishops he deemed necessary to preserve Tradition and the SSPX.
Obitur Dictum: I can no longer find the Fideliter #79 (January - February 1991) on SSPX.org. Can you?
#79: Compromise (En Route to the Vernacular Hybrid?):
On February 24, 2014 Bishop Peter Elliott (Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Melbourne Australia) wrote of the following interesting "dialogue" with Bishop Fellay and some priests of the SSPX:
"Let us be realistic. If you want the Extraordinary Form to become the Ordinary Form, reflect on the millions of people who come to vernacular Masses in our parishes around the world, in many countries and cultures. Would they easily embrace a Latin Low Mass with a server answering? And let us not forget the priests. This is why some pastoral realism is required. But let me put out a challenge - a reform of the Extraordinary Form would first be required - and I note that this has been suggested in terms of the Vatican Council’s “full, active and conscious participation.”
We know would that reform would look like. We already have it at our fingertips. It would be a Latin dialogue Mass, said or sung ad orientem, with the readings in the vernacular. Then questions arise about some other changes set out in Sacrosanctum Concilium. In the context of the wider Church another issue inevitably emerges: could the Extraordinary Form be said or sung in the vernacular?
Well, we know that Bishop Fellay was quite pleased with Summorum Pontificum, and that in both the letter to the bishops which accompanied the promulgation of the motu proprio, as well as in a later 2011 letter on the application of the motu proprio authorized by Benedict XVI, it is stated:
25. New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.
26. As foreseen by article 6 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the readings of the Holy Mass of the Missal of 1962 can be proclaimed either solely in the Latin language, or in Latin followed by the vernacular or, in Low Masses,solely in the vernacular.
The apprehension anti-conciliarists entertain about a forthcoming hybrid Mass is anything BUT irrational conspiracy theory.
It is a stated fact by the Holy Father!
Now, if Bishop Fellay does not oppose such innovations as a vernacular TLM, then what is to impede Rome from implementing these foreseen norms and applying them to the SSPX?
All that is really necessary on Bishop Fellay's part is to be patient enough to condition minds to accept it, and those measures have been underway for quite some time:
The inclusion of hymnal books in the pews and sermons encouraging congregational singing; the proliferation of dialogue Masses throughout the SSPX school systems; modifications regarding the postures of the faithful concordant with congregational singing; and even various experimental measures in the most liberal parishes (e.g., Sanford, FL), where the choir leader is positioned at the communion rail versus populum (thereby converting the entire congregation into a choir); the reading of the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular only in various parts of France; etc.
All these emphases tend to reinforce a conciliar notion of "active participation," and once that attitude is inculcated, why, the vernacular is only natural. After all, the people are not Latinists!
All signs point toward a meeting of the minds of Benedict XVI/Francis and Bishop Fellay on this subject, which makes the advent of the hybrid as predictable as it is inevitable.
#80: Contradiction (Immoral Leak?):
Shortly after the Letter of the Three Bishops and subsequently, the Response of the General Council were leaked to the internet, former US District Superior, Fr. Arnaud Rostand, went on the attack to denounce the immorality of airing private correspondences:
"First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the revolutionary nature, of publishing such private documents. If it can be grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any pressures.
As regards the sinfulness of leaking private correspondences is concerned, Fr. Rostand's denunciation implicitly acknowledges a superior's decisions must be made in view of the common good. But we know from the Response of the General Council itself that Bishop Fellay explicitly acknowledged that in pursuing a practical accord, he was consciously acting against the common good of the SSPX:
But surely Fr. Rostand is aware that nearly all approved moralists adduce as reasonable cause for the revelation of secrets (i.e., confidential information) "the urgent necessity of either the public or private good." (Prummer, Fr. Dominic. Handbook of Moral Theology, #295). With Bishop Fellay announcing his intention to make a decision against the common good of the public good of the SSPX, there can be no doubt that this criterion was satisfied.
Moreover, as regards reading private letters in particular, Prummer states that,
"It is grievously sinful to read the secret letters of writings of another without the consent of another...without just cause." (Ibid. #296)
Obviously, the common good meets the "just cause" threshold.
However, not long after Fr. Rostand's denunciation, Fr. Wailliez (Belgian District Superior) was hacking into the email account of Fr. Olivier Rioult, and having successfully accomplished his task, pretended to be Fr. Nicklaus Pinaud, in order to gain information by which to thwart the budding French speaking Resistance. That whole story can be read here: www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/incredible!-the-neo-sspx-from-persecution-to-identity-theft/
Can Fr. Walliez avail himself of the same cause excusing from sin as whomever leaked the Letter of the Three Bishops and the Response of the General Council (i.e., Can they lay claim to the common good of the SSPX)?
Obviously not: Bishop Fellay acknowledged his decision to sign an accord with unconverted Rome was a decision against the common good of the SSPX. Fr. Wailliez's actions of theft and deceit were taken in the support and furtherance of Bishop Fellay's desire to pursue a canonical "regularization" with unconverted Rome, and his activities had the effect of diminishing the effectiveness of those priests who were still fighting for the common good of the SSPX against the revolutionary new direction of its major superiors.
And even if, somehow, one wanted to argue that point, they will not be able to defend the manifest sinfulness of the lies represented by holding yourself out as another priest in order to obtain information.
It would seem that for the SSPX in pursuit of an accord, the ends justify the means: A virtuous and moral act is denounced as sinful, but on the other hand, a manifestly sinful act aroused no ire ad infra.
Obitur Dictum: Detraction is the sin of revealing the secret sins of another. The sins of Fr. Wailliez do not fall within the domain of "secret," insofar as they have been public for 6 years, and published by others all over the world, and particularly to SSPX and Resistance audiences.
[All emphasis in the original.]
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
If "opening the windows" to the modern world at Vatican II was the cause of the infiltration of moral degeneracy into the conciliar church, then it stands to reason that an SSPX opening its own "windows" to the conciliar church (and therefore the world) would suffer the same fate.
But this is precisely what is happening, as Bishop Williamson observed in Eleison Comments #260:
"The parallels between Vatican II and the recent happenings within the Society of St Pius X are so striking that these happenings could be called Vatican IIB. It stands to reason. Exactly the same seduction and pressure of the modern world that made the mainstream churchmen collapse in the 1960’s have swayed a number of SSPX members in the 2000’s, bringing the SSPX to near collapse." stmarcelinitiative.com/vaticaniib/
But what is the connection between worldliness and sodomy (*), you ask?
The Apostle gives us the answer in the second half of Romans 1:21-30:
"Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents."www.drbo.org/chapter/52001.htm
The Apostle teaches us that the punishment for idolatry (and worldliness is a form of idolatry which worships creation and creature more than the creator) is unnatural vice and viciousness.
Had there been only one school scandal, the relationship between the ever-more conciliar and worldly SSPX and the scandal would not have been made.
But when a single school has multiple scandals of this type, one starts to inquire into the causes.
Then, when a second and a third school (each in another affluent country) erupt with their own moral scandals (in those cases, consenting to immoral school policies, seemingly in return for financial aid), and all three schools' issues transpiring within a couple years of each other, I begin to see the cause (i.e., Money, affluent families, worldliness).
Finally, when I think back to the SSPX of the 1970's and 1980's (i.e., the combat troops, setting up schools in basements), and note the absence of any such scandals, I become convinced I have properly assigned the cause.
The Society has become worldly.
Many have noted the increase in fundraising activities, branding companies, public relations firms, and the "need" to have bigger and better everything without real necessity (of which the greatest example is the new seminary in Virginia).
The recent picture of the US District office women all in pants is symbolic of this worldliness.
So long as it persists (and it will persist so long as the Society is hell-bent on finding a livable situation in the pluralist and worldly conciliar church), the schools and families will continue to degenerate.
(*)Obitur Dictum: I have been deliberately vague regarding the details of the various moral scandals, for the sake of the pious. Those who wish to inquire further can find more information on various Cathinfo threads using the search function.
#82: Contradiction (+Lefebvre vs +Fellay/Pagliarani on "Dialogue"):
On May 17, 2016 Pope Francis made this comment in an interview with La Croix regarding Bishop Fellay's willingness to "dialogue:"
Was he one with whom the conciliarists could dialogue?
Here he is, answering in his own words:
"The adulterous union of the Church and the Revolution is cemented by "dialogue." Our Lord said "Go, teach all nations and convert them." He did not say "Hold dialogue with them but don't try to convert them." Truth and error are incompatible; to dialogue with error is to put God and the devil on the same footing. This is what the Popes have always repeated and what was easy for Christians to understand because it is also a matter of common sense. In order to impose different attitudes and reactions it was necessary to do some indoctrinating so as to make modernists of the clergy needed to spread the new doctrine. This is what is called "recycling," a conditioning process intended to refashion the very faculty God gave man to direct his judgment...Two typical attitudes can be discerned, while allowing for the possibility of intermediate ones. The first means accepting a number of novelties one by one as they are imposed. This is the case with many Christians, many Catholics: they give in little by little." www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-15.htm
Do you see the great chasm which divides Bishop Fellay from Archbishop Lefebvre?
When Bishop Fellay speaks to Rome, it is merely GREC dialogue(*): Getting used to each other, in order to get a good deal. Nothing about Rome needing to return to Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre was the exact opposite, and his contacts had the object of bringing Rome back to Tradition (a principle which found itself codified in the 2006 General Chapter Declaration):
(*) It would appear Fr. Pagliarani is cut from the same cloth as Bishop Fellay: In November, he went with Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard (one of the original SSPX GREC participants and sponsors, whom we also mentioned in posts #58 and 67) to meet with Cardinal Ladaria. A couple months later, Fr. Pagliarani told the world that since Rome was insisting on a signed doctrinal statement as a condition for "regularization," whereas the previous doctrinal discussions/negotiations had ended in an impasse (at least from the doctrinal perspective), it showed we needed another round of negotiations, er, discussions, and this time it would not be necessary for the SSPX to convince its interlocutors. fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/communiqu%C3%A9-meeting-between-cardinal-ladaria-and-fr-pagliarani-42426
In other words, Fr. Pagliarani is going to Rome to dialogue and negotiate the Faith; to "find the right words."
It will be another gigantic step for the Society into conciliarism, while Rome stays firmly planted in their errors.
#83: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay on Campos):
In Bishop Fellay's 1/6/2003 Superior General's Letter to Friends & Benefactors #63 regarding the fall of Campos, he makes a number of observations which bear a striking resemblance to the changes and evolution which has been taking place in the SSPX over the last 7-10 years. We quote some of these observations, and if the reader mentally replaces the word "Campos" with "SSPX," he will see that in many respects Bishop Fellay seems to have fallen under his own knife when he observed that:
Let us provide some of these applicable observations, and comment upon them:
1) "Alas, our fears roused by the Campos agreement have proved to be well-founded, and the evolution we observe of the Campos Apostolic Administration, contrary to Roman expectations, leaves us distrustful."
Today, despite Bishop Fellay's fears having proved to be well-founded, there is no longer distrust. It is as though Rome had converted, and there is no reason to fear. In Bishop Fellay's Australia conference cited earlier in this thread (see post #3), he clearly states his belief that, despite Rome's ever-worsening apostasy, "it is not a trap." Apparently putting sheep and wolves together in the same barn presents no danger to the sheep.
2) "However, it is clear that the principle governing today’s Rome is still to put the Council into practice as has been done for the last 40 years. Neither official documents nor general policy show any fundamental re-thinking of this principle. On the contrary, we are always being told that what the Council set in motion is irreversible, which leads us to ask why there has been a change of attitude with regard to ourselves. Various explanations are possible, but it is primarily because of the pluralist and ecumenical vision of things now prevailing in the Catholic world. According to this vision, everybody is to mix together without anybody needing any longer to convert, as Cardinal Kasper said in connection with the Orthodox and even the Jews."
We think this article from the liberal periodical Commonweal has a better grasp upon Rome's perspective than the SSPX's accordist apologists, regardless of what an Archbishop Pozzo or Schneider may occasionally say to the contrary: www.commonwealmagazine.org/francis-traditionalists
3) "From such a standpoint there will even be a little room for Catholic Tradition, but for our part we cannot accept this vision of variable truth any more than a mathematics teacher can accept a variable multiplication table. The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos."
But Your Excellency, how did this "vision of variable truth" become acceptable by 2012?
How did it become acceptable to strike a deal with a Rome determined to bring you back to the Council?
Do you renounce your condemnation of Campos, or do you maintain that, despite a Prelature offering no protection from the modernist bishops, somehow immersion in the modernist millieu will have no impact upon you (a belief this entire thread proves to be untenable)?
4) "For this purpose, let us emphasize two points in the evolution of the Campos SSPX situation: firstly, how their attitude to Rome has changed since the agreement branding campaign and secondly, how Campos SSPX is moving further and further away from ourselves Archbishop Lefebvre, with all the upset that that implies.
Changes in Campos SSPX
Campos Menzingen through its leader, Bishop Rifan Fellay, is crying out for all to hear that nothing has changed, that the priests of the Apostolic Administration Society are just as Traditional as before, which is the essence of what they have been granted, and why they accepted Rome’s offer: because Rome approved of the Traditional position."
5) "For our part, let us begin by noting that we are well aware that in any disagreement one tends to discredit one’s adversary. For instance in the case of our former friends in Campos, there are certainly false rumors circulating to the effect that “Bishop Rifan has concelebrated the New Mass.”
6) "The ambiguity implicit here has become more or less normal in the new situation in which they find themselves: they emphasize those points in the present pontificate which seem favourable to Tradition, and tip-toe past the rest. Say what we will: there took place in Campos on January 18, 2002, not only a one-sided recognition of Campos by Rome, as some claim, but also, in exchange, an undertaking by Campos to keep quiet. And how could it be otherwise? It is clear by now that Campos has something to lose which they are afraid or losing, and so in order not to lose it they have chosen the path of compromise: “We Brazilians are men of peace, you Frenchmen are always fighting”. Which means that, in order to keep the peace with Rome, one must stop fighting. They no longer see the situation of the Church as a whole, they content themselves with Rome’s gesture in favour of a little group of two dozen priests and say that there is no longer any emergency in the Church because the granting of a Traditional bishop has created a new juridical situation…They are forgetting the wood for a single tree."
But Your Excellency, you instituted a branding campaign which follows the same path!
(See post #26 of this thread on the branding campaign; See post #68 for the state of necessity allegedly receding)
7) "Within this way of thinking even the Novus Ordo Mass can be accommodated. Campos forgets the 62 reasons for having nothing to do with it, Campos now finds that if it is properly celebrated, it is valid (which we have never denied, but that is not the point). Campos no longer says that Catholics must stay away because the New Mass is bad, and dangerous. Bishop Rifan says, by way of justifying his position on the Mass: “So we reject all use of the Traditional Mass as a battle-flag to insult and fight the lawfully constituted hierarchical authority of the Church. We stay with the Traditional Mass, not out of any spirit of contradiction, but as a clear and lawful expression of our Catholic Faith!”. We are reminded of the words of a Cardinal a little while back: “Whereas the SSPX is FOR the old Mass, the Fraternity of Saint Peter Is AGAINST the New Mass. It’s not the same thing”. That was Rome’s argument to justify taking action against Fr. Bisig of the Fraternity of Saint Peter at about the same time that Rome was cozying up to the SSPX. The Cardinal’s curious distinction is now being put into practice by Campos, as they pretend to be for the old Mass but not against the new. Likewise for Tradition, but not against today’s Rome."
But Your Excellency, in the April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration, you agreed (by your signature) with the following proposition:
"We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II."
But previously, the SSPX taught that the Mass of Paul VI was not legitimately promulgated:
"A law is legitimate only when it is duly promulgated by the lawfully constituted authority. But to this condition must be added another of supreme importance and essential to make it a law: it must be for the common good. And precisely on this score, the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) is most defective as was attested at the time of its promulgation by no less than by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci." sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit
Is not the Society also therefore seeking to make an accomodation with the new Mass?
Your Excellency's comment to Cardinal Canizaeres that had Archbishop Lefebvre seen the reverent Novus Ordo Mass Your Excellency witnessed, he never would have taken the step that he did" certainly implies that to you, the new Mass has become less odious (See post #35 of this thread; see also post #1, where a classic SSPX prayer book has excised attendance at the new Mass from its examination of conscience for confessions, implying there is no moral objection to attending it)
8. "We maintain that Vatican II cannot contradict Catholic Tradition”, said Bishop Rifan quite recently to a French magazine, Famille Chrétienne. Yet a well-known Cardinal said that Vatican II was the French Revolution inside the Church. Bishop de Castro Mayer said the same thing…."
But Your Excellency, you also implied Vatican II was compatible with Tradition in your CNS interview (See post #9 of this thread).
9) "So little by little the will to fight grows weaker and finally one gets used to the situation. In Campos itself, everything positively traditional is being maintained, for sure, so the people see nothing different, except that the more perceptive amongst them notice the priests’ tendency to speak respectfully and more often of recent statements and events coming out of Rome, while yesterday’s warnings and today’s deviations are left out."
But Your Excellency, do we not notice the same thing with your branding campaign's central tenet being to be more "positive," and less polemic? Or in your forwarding of Archbishop di Noia's letter to all SSPX priests requesting them to cease preaching against Roman modernism and Vatican II (See post #31)?
10) "The great danger here is that in the end one gets used to the situation as it is, and no longer tries to remedy it. For our part we have no intention of launching out until we are certain that Rome means to maintain Tradition. We need signs that they have converted."
But Your Excellency, do we not see in the overturning of the 2006 general Chapter declaration a coming to terms with the situation in Rome, and in the willingness to strike a practical accord with unconverted Rome, a disregard for the conversion of Rome? What signs have you received that they have converted? Certainly not the equivocal concessions of 2007 and 2009, or the failed doctrinal discussions (in which Bishop de Galarreta acknowledged they would hear nothing of your arguments)!
11) "Besides this wholly foreseeable evolution of minds by which the Campos SSPX priests have, whatever they say, given up the fight, we must note another occurrence, the increasing hostility between us. Bishop Rifan still says that he wants to be our friend, but some Campos SSPX priests are already accusing us of being schismatic because we refuse their agreement with Rome."
But Your Excellency, is this not precisely your attitude toward the Resistance? Is it not openly stated in the approved writings of Fr. Michel Simoulin and others?
12) "A little like one sees a boat pushing into mid-river, drifting down-stream and leaving the bank behind, so we see, little by little, several indications of the distance growing between ourselves and Campos Menzingen. We had warned them of the great danger, they chose not to listen. Since they have no wish to row up-stream, then even while inside the boat things carry on as before, which gives them the impression that nothing has changed, nevertheless they are leaving us behind, as they show themselves more and more attached to the magisterium of today, as opposed to the position they held until recently and which we still hold, namely a sane criticism of the present in the light of the past."
Ah, but Your Excellency, do you not also show the same attachment towards the "magisterium of today," for example, by your refusal to distinguish between the conciliar and Catholic Churches? (See posts #11 and 25)
13) "To sum up, we are bound to say that the Campos SSPX priests, despite their claims to the contrary, are slowly being re-molded, following the lead of their new bishop, in the spirit of the Council. That is all Rome wants – for the moment."
This thread makes it undeniable that the same process has been taking place in the SSPX for several years.
14) "To guarantee our future, we must obtain from today’s Rome clear proof of its attachment to the Rome of yesterday. When the Roman authorities have restated with actions speaking louder than words that “There must be no innovations outside of Tradition”, then “we” shall no longer be a problem."
Had Your Excellency held firm and true to this position, we would not today be witnessing the dissolution of the SSPX into conciliarism.
#84: Compromise (Silence on Assisi III...or IV):
In 2011, the "traditional pope" convened the third(*) blasphemous gathering at Assisi, and the SSPX had not much to say about it, initially.
This was already the era of the ralliement, with the SSPX soon to gather in Albano, Italy to consider the Pope's offer for a practical accord (an offer Bishop Fellay would later accept). Obviously, a denunciation of modernist Rome could have implications on the negotiation process, and consequently, Menzingen was silent on the ecumenical blasphemy about to transpire.
But the French District Superior, Fr. Regis de Cacqueray, was indignant about the matter, and published a strident denunciation of the affair.
The matter was a source of embarrassment for Bishop Fellay, who was quite upset about it, because not only did such a letter threaten to upset SSPX-Roman relations, but the letter, having come from a District Superior, and not from the general House, tended to highlight the new policy of silence on Roman deviations in pursuit of an accord, whereas the SSPX wanted to maintain the illusion of continuing the combat.
The tale is recounted thusly in the anonymous Open Letter to Bishop Fellay from 37 French Priests:
"At the end of the priestly retreat, two colleagues accused me of being in revolt against your authority, because I showed satisfaction with the text of Fr. de Cacqueray against Assisi III. What do you think?” Your [Bishop Fellay] answer was: “I wasn’t aware of such things happening within the Society! It was I who asked for this declaration. Moreover, it was published with my permission! I completely agree with Fr. de Cacqueray!"
Yet, during the Sisters’ retreat at Ruffec, you confided to six priests that you did not agree with the text of Fr. de Cacqueray! Moreover, for 20 minutes, you complained to him about the criticism you had received, from Cardinal Levada, about that subject. If you gave him the permission to publish it, then it was, you explained, so as not to appear biased, but, personally, you disapproved of the contents which you judged to be excessive. Your Excellency, who therefore is using “fundamentally subversive” means? Who is it that is revolutionary? Who is it that does harm to the common good of our Society [of St. Pius X]?" www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/open-letter-to-bishop-fellay-from-thirty-seven-french-priests/
Though some may initially object to this information, given the anonymity of the author(s), the story is substantially corroborated by the Avrille Dominicans in their Letter n° 87 (May 13, 2014):
Fr. Francois Chazal's article "War Aims" also corroborates the account given in the Letter of 37 French Priests:
"When he got finished I then asked candidly: “If you [Bishop Fellay] are indeed truly against Vatican II, why were you, my Lordship, so silent about Assisi III(*)?” Referring to one phrase pronounced in St Nicolas du Chardonnet, he said that he made his all the condemnations of the Archbishop about Assisi. That sounded awkward and Fr. Nely rushed to the rescue, explaining how bad Assisi III(*) really was. Not getting it, I reminded his Lordship of his resolute NO, when I was with him in Cebu, to my request for a strong and public stance against Assisi III(*). (He said the same to the Pfeiffer brothers at the time)." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/war-aims-by-fr-chazal/
Though I cannot find any online copies of the original condemnation of Fr. de Cacqueray, I seem to recall that it did not contain the explicit endorsement of Bishop Fellay within its text, and that this only appeared shortly thereafter, in a second published version, to give the illusion of Bishop Fellay's initial and continuous support of Fr. de Cacqueray's letter, which can be found here (*): sspx.org/en/why-assisi-2011-was-scandal
The reader may, therefore, dismiss that recollection from the conversation. It does not injure the salient point, corroborated by the citations included above, which is this:
That in order to protect relations with Rome, Bishop Fellay was reluctant to endorse Fr. de Cacqueray's letter, and/or condemn Assisi.
Subsequent affirmations in later years from Bishop Fellay and the SSPX that they will continue to maintain the combat for the faith against Roman modernism and the errors of Vatican II should be evaluated with accounts such as this in mind.
(*): It is not clear to me why the 2014 Dominican article refers to Assisi IV, while the SSPX article, Fr. Chazal, and several other sites refer to Assisi III. So far as I can tell, by 2014 there had in fact been 4 Assisi prayer meetings: 1986, 1993, 2002, and 2011 (with this last being the one under consideration here), which would make the Dominican account correct. Is the 2nd Assisi meeting in 1993 commonly forgotten? Or is it not included for some reason? In any case, all accounts contained within this post are discussing the same Assisi meeting in 2011 (i.e., Cardinal Levada had not yet been elevated to the Cardinalate at the time of the 2002 meeting; he was elevated in 2006).
#85: Change (Divine Mercy Devotion Making Further Inroads):
In post #1 of this thread, we recounted how the SSPX devotional staple "Christian Warfare" had excised from the examination of conscience section in newer editions the consideration of whether or not the penitent had "attended and actively participated in the new Mass" which had been present on p. 289 of the 2006 edition.
And in post #51, we noted that books promoting the Divine Mercy Devotion were being sold by the SSPX German District publishing house, and that
assages from Sr. Kowalska's "Diary" were being posted on the Polish District Facebook page (yes, they have a Facebook page), while the St. Mary's newsletter of 12/7/14 refers to "Saint" Faustina.
Now, I am informed by a Cathinfo member ("KlasG4e") that:
"I noticed that in my 2009 Christian Warfare "New Deluxe Edition" in Chapter IV (Devotion to the Sacred Heart) on p. 122 one finds printed out the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!"
See the attachments section (below) for photographic evidence of the offending page.
As we will soon see, this is not the first time SSPX publishing houses have tried to sneak these conciliar changes into their books!
[NB: I really have nothing to add to Sean Johnson's article, except to reemphasize that the only revisions which seem have taken place in the Michael Davies reprint are all of a nature bringing his former work into line with conciliar ecclesiology. If then the SSPX is publishing and promoting such a book, it stands to reason that the SSPX has moved doctrinally in the direction of the former Ecclesia Dei communities (who accept the new ecclesiology).]
More Evidence of Convergence Between the SSPX and Ecclesia Dei Communities: The 2007 Angelus Press Revised/Expanded Edition of Michael Davies’ “Pope John’s Council”
This September will see the 10 year anniversary of the death of Michael Davies.
A strong supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre until the time of the 1988 episcopal consecrations, he then opted to side with the indultarian Una Voce movement (becoming its President in 1992).
Having traded the battle for integral Catholic doctrine in preference for the permission to attend the 1962 Mass, he significantly toned down his rhetoric, lest his movement be seen to criticize the modernists, and jeopardize the indult.
Among other things, he is remembered for his famous saying, "It is the Mass that matters."
Indeed, this saying could be the motto for every indult group in the Church, since it is the only thing their false obedience has been able to retain (and even in that respect, it is only to be considered a preference; a rite on equal footing with the Novus Ordo).
So, it was only natural that Michael Davies and the SSPX should drift apart.
Whether he was conscious of it or not, Michael Davies was only given his “table scraps” because the Romans perceived that others like him (i.e., battle weary, or scrupulous, or compromised Catholics) could be drawn away from the SSPX with the lure of an approved Traditional Latin Mass.
So pitched were the differences between the SSPX and various indult/Ecclesia Dei organizations, that they would not even march in the same direction at the annual Chartres (France) Pilgrimage for Tradition, nor would they travel the same route: Leaders would meet in advance of the opposed pilgrimages to ensure the two did not intersect!
This was symbolic of the completely opposite ends which the two groups had in mind: Securing the Mass, on the one hand, vs. securing the entire Faith, on the other.
But those were the good old days.
Recent years have seen mounting evidence of a convergence of aims and ends between the SSPX and the various indult groups in ways which would have been impossible under Archbishop Lefebvre: The notice appearing on the SSPX Polish District website congratulating the Ecclesia Dei communities' recent 2013 ordinations; the January 2014 letter from Menzingen in which Fr. Pivert's book is condemned, with Menzingen offering strident defenses of the indult communities; the ‘trad-cumenical’ initiatives in which The Remnant participates at The Angelus conferences; etc).
But I would like to discuss one which flew under the radar: The 2007 Angelus Press reprint of the revised/expanded "Pope John's Council" by Michael Davies.
Having just illustrated the divergence of opinion between Michael Davies and the SSPX since the 1988 episcopal consecrations (and the dumbing-down of the subject matter of Davies' later books, which must always follow upon a regularization), it is a pleasant mythology spread amongst SSPXers that, towards the end of his life, Michael Davies "came back" to the SSPX, and again collaborated with them, having realized the limited and short-sighted nature of his indult position.
However, it is the purpose of this brief article to demonstrate that in fact, it is the opposite which is true:
That with the commencement in 2007 of the branding campaign (designed to cease-fire against modernism and the modernists in Rome, for the purposes of securing a Roman approval of the SSPX), the SSPX moved closer to Michael Davies' indult position, rather than the other way around.
Observe that in 2001, the SSPX was condemning Dominus Iesus thusly:
"As a result, the document does not wish to repeat, firmly and univocally, that there is only one way of salvation, i.e., that established by Christ in His Church. Instead it gives us to understand, through its equivocations, that we must admit that "historical figures and positive elements of these [other] religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation," and that, according to Vatican II, the false religions can be seen to exercise "a manifold cooperation" and even a "participated mediation" in the one mediatorship of Christ. There is one reservation, however: these "participated forms of mediation...cannot be understood as parallel or complementary to his." In fact, the concept of parallel [equal] complementarity is very different from that of participated [subordinate] mediation.
This concept of participated, subordinate mediation has always been intrinsic to the Catholic religion. What is new in the Declaration, and what is unheard-of in the Catholic religion, is that this participated mediation is now no longer reserved to the Most Blessed Virgin, the Saints and the members of the Mystical Body, but extended to all the false religions (the sects and the pagan religions). This is in harmony with the "new theology," which no longer understands the Mystical Body to be coextensive with the visible Church (plus the individual exceptions in the case of souls united to the Church "in voto," by implicit and explicit desire), but broadens and expands Christ's Mystical Body to embrace all humanity with all its false religious beliefs.
The fundamental concept of ecumenism can be reduced to this: "All religions are orientated to salvation, which is one, and is of Christ. These religions are ranked according to each one's degree of participation in the fullness of truth and salvation which is found in its highest degree in Christ and his Church." This is the basis supporting the superstructure of the Declaration Dominus Jesus, and we cannot see in what way it differs from the thesis of Modernism, namely, that God reveals Himself "in the life of all the religions, individually and collectively, but most of all in the life of Christianity" (George Tyrrell, Per la sincerità in Rinnovamento [For Sincerity in the Renewal] July-Aug. 1907." www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_September/Dominus_Jesus.htm
That was the SSPX in 2001 (i.e., Well before the branding campaign was commenced, and at a time when the plan to "proceed by stages" towards a “reconciliation" was in its infancy).
But in 2007, the Angelus announced that, with the new incoming editor, a new editorial policy would feature a "more positive" and less critical approach.
That same year, Angelus Press released Michael Davies revised edition of "Pope John's Council", which contained an heretical notion of apostolicity, with Davies claiming that -in accord with Dominus Iesus- the Orthodox churches were "authentic local churches," and that the Orthodox possess formal apostolicity. (p. 97)
The book also contains an Appendix titled "The Declaration Dominus Iesus Regarding the Term Subsistit" (p. 403-408), in which Davies (and the SSPX's) confusion reaches new heights, going so far as to exclaim, "Some traditional Catholics have questioned the possibility as to how there can be true churches not in communion with the Pope...", as though it were we who are confused!
Now to be clear, Orthodox bishops possess mere material apostolicity (i.e., episcopal continuity), but not formal apostolicity (which in addition to episcopal continuity, adds jurisdiction). See the Catholic Encyclopedia here: newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm
Since Orthodox bishops possess mere material apostolicity, it necessarily follows their local churches are not to be regarded as authentic churches (i.e., Since their bishops, lacking formal apostolicity, lack jurisdiction).
At this point, a number of questions arise:
1) To publish such a book, which defends an heretical proposition regarding apostolicity, and promotes an ecumenically inspired Dominus Iesus perfectly in line with Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, the SSPX has walked back on its 2001 condemnation (cited earlier). Why?
2) It seems it was not Michael Davies revising his book to approach the SSPX position outlined in their condemnation of 2001, but rather, the SSPX publishing a book in 2007 which contradicts its former condemnation of Dominus Iesus in 2001, to promote Davies' ecumenical position. Why?
3) Interestingly enough, I perceived this error back in 2007 when I purchased the book, and contacted The Angelus to make them aware of the error on apostolicity. I was told by the editor that it had been reviewed by three SSPX priests before it went to press (i.e., the implication being that I was wrong). I pressed the issue, and finally received an acknowledgement from a District official that conceded the point, and told me that, minimally, a notice of "errata" would be inserted in future shipments. Has this been done? Or, have they expunged the ecumenical content from Davies revised volume (in which case there would be little point of publishing a revision at all!)? (NB: Luker –a personage on Archbishoplefebvreforums- confirms that a sticker has been superimposed on subsequent volumes, but that the only change the overlay makes is to remove the word "formal" from apostolic succession. Hence, an heretical statement has been "improved" to one merely ambiguous. Small consolation. Meanwhile, the entire ecumenical sense of this portion of the book is consistent with Dominus Iesus and Lumen Gentium)
4) Regardless of who moved towards who, can anyone explain why the SSPX would publish a book promoting ecumenical ecclesiology (i.e., Dominus Iesus, and by extension, Lumen Gentium)? My conclusion is this:
The publication of this revised Michael Davies work was one of the first attempts by the branded SSPX at incrementally "shifting" the SSPX audience towards looking favorably upon recent magisterial documents;
It was useful for building the bridge between SSPXers, Romans, and indultarians.
The only other alternative is to believe that the SSPX has suddenly become doctrinally incompetent, and is oblivious to publishing errors, which is not likely.
In any case, it shows that Michael Davies definitely did not come back to a traditional SSPX perspective (as though Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted Dominus Iesus any more than Bishop Fellay did in 2001), but instead, that the SSPX moved towards Michael Davies' indult position.
More disturbing than this, is the fact that in the larger picture (in light of the other examples cited above, which is far from exhaustive), it evinces an SSPX embarked upon a trajectory of convergence with the indult communities.
Once that convergence is completed, via slow boil, will there really be any need to negotiate a practical accord?
Indeed, as the Dominicans at Avrillé recently wrote, the terrain is already prepared for a recognition of tolerance “ad tempus” (in which no written accord will be necessary).
But at what price?
When the day comes that you see the indultarian and SSPX Chartres Pilgrimages for Tradition marching in the same direction, understand that there is much more symbolism there than meets the eye.
In view of the eminence and reputation of Michael Davies, many readers of this article may be reluctant to accept that so gifted a man erred in so obvious and fundamental a doctrine as that on the Church's teaching regarding apostolicity.
The first error of Mr. Davies is that he overlooked (or ignored) the distinction between material vs formal apostolicity (even though, interestingly enough, he uses the term "formal apostolic succession" in an erroneous sense at the bottom of p. 97).
As recounted above, "material apostolicity" is mere episcopal continuity (i.e., episcopal lineage traceable down to the Apostles), whereas "formal apostolicity" adds to mere material apostolicity the power of jurisdiction, which comes from the Pope.
Since a schismatic "church" cannot possess jurisdiction (other than a supplied jurisdiction acquired through necessity), and therefore cannot possess formal apostolicity, it necessarily follows that schismatic churches can never be considered authentic or true local churches.
But Michael Davies says otherwise:
On p. 98, he cites in support of his contention that the schismatic Orthodox possess formal apostolicity the Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX, Arcano Divinae Providentiae (1868), in which he observes that the great Pontiff "invited the bishops of the churches of the Oriental Rite not in communion with Rome to be present at the First Vatican Council on an equal basis with the bishops of the Latin Rite in communion with Rome."
Now it is telling that this citation (obviously meant to justify Dominus Iesus, which follows as a separate appendix at the end of the book on pp 403-408) is entirely absent from the original 1970s version of "Pope John's Council."
But what is missed by Davies is that the Apostolic Letter is not an invitation to participate in Vatican I as schismatics, but an invitation to rejoin the Mystical Body of Christ in order that they could participate:
But Davies, confusing the matter even further, misreads this Letter as pointing to the Councils of Lyons and Florence as having allowed schismatics to participate as schismatics, not as uniates (as though schismatics could set policy and doctrine for the Catholic Church!), and not in the proper sense just previously quoted.
For example, the Orthodox participated in the Second Council of Lyons only because they consented to sign this declaration (which made them Catholics):
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."
That this participation and Council did not end the schism permanently or completely is only because, according to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, the representatives had no authority to bind the other Orthodox bishops back home.
But the simple fact is that those Orthodox who participated were converted Catholics at the onset by the signing of that declaration.
It is worth mentioning that in so far as certain Churches (e.g., the Greek Orthodox) become uniate or schismatic at various points in history, they likewise vacillated between true particular churches possessing formal apostolicity, and schismatic churches, possessing only material apostolicity (therefore not representing true local churches at such times).
But in the appendix titled "The Declaration Dominus Iesus Re: The Term Subsistit," which represents a blatant defense of Lumen Gentium as well, the reader will be shocked to see how far this error regarding formal apostolicity and true local churches causes Davies to embrace the new ecclesiology:
"But what of the churches, dioceses, that have breached their unity with the Holy See? Do they cease to be particular churches? By no means." (P. 406)
Now, I will be unjustly fair to Mr. Davies here, because as the phrase stands, he does not distinguish between authentic and schismatic particular churches (which makes it merely ambiguous).
But from the context, previous quotes showing him arguing in favor of schismatic churches representing authentic churches, and the sentence immediately following that just quoted, in which Mr. Davies reverts to his already refuted erroneous interpretation of Pius IX's Arcano Divinae Providentiae, we know what he means, and he finishes with the alarming statement that:
"There is thus no doubt whatsoever that the Dioceses of the Eastern Orthodox Churches constitute true particular churches despite being schismatic." (p. 406)
That statement is heretical, insofar as it directly contradicts the Church's immemorial teaching on apostolicity, in addition to implicitly rejecting Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christii (of which Dominus Iesus and Lumen Gentium are also violators).
No particular church can be said to be a “true particular church” which does not possess formal apostolicity, and therefore receive its jurisdiction from the Pope. It necessarily follows, therefore, that all true particular churches are in union with Rome, since otherwise, it is not possible for them to possess ordinary jurisdiction (the distinguishing feature of formal apostolicity). To say otherwise is to make of the Petrine Primacy an empty title, by implying jurisdiction (which only flows from Peter) is not necessary for a true particular church to have a legitimate apostolic mission.
And it is ludicrous to contend that there can be such a thing as a true particular church not in union with Peter, which is at once divided in government, worship, doctrine, and devoid of jurisdiction and legitimate apostolic mission, for to hold any other opinion is to negate the gravity of schism (and heresy) and make the injunctions of the Church and Pius XII, et al, frivolous and of no consequence for salvation.
Moreover, it is to encourage complacency and peaceful conscience in the hearts of those our Lord is trying to prompt to reach out to the only Ark of Salvation which is the Catholic Church, and in such measure, the position advocated by Davies, Dominus Iesus, and Lumen Gentium is antichrist.
Therein lies the true evil latent within the teaching of Dominus Iesus and Lumen Gentium, and the contorted path Michael Davies has traveled in order to attempt to justify them.
But having reached this point, we are brought back to asking ourselves the question:
Why is the SSPX publishing a book promoting such ideas?
To my thinking, that question has already been answered above.
#87: Contradiction (Interference in the Traditional Religious Orders):
We have already seen in post #41, with the ultimatum issued to Dom Thomas Aquinas and the Benedictines of Santa Cruz Monastery in Brazil, that Bishop Fellay did not hesitate to illegitimately impose himself in the internal matters of the exempt religious orders (e.g., That Dom Thomas Aquinas present himself in front of the community and tender his resignation, or the monastery would be placed under interdict as regards ordinations, confirmations, etc).
But this reprehensible conduct was not reserved for the Benedictines.
In 2013, Bishop de Gallareta "authorized" a new "Dominican" foundation in Steffeshausen, Belgium comprised of fugitive apostates from Avrille, without any consultation and against the explicit refusal of the legitimate Dominican superiors, and placing himself as their superior! www.ecclesiamilitans.com/steffeshausen_foundation.pdf
But it was not the first act of interference on the part of Menzingen in the affairs of Avrille.
As the Steffeshausen Memorandum recounts, Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta had been interfering for several years prior, going so far as to exclaustrate one Friar, without the permission, and against the explicit wishes, of his superiors (while violating canon law in permitting him to retain the habit, and for a period of 15 years!).
There are many additional examples of illegitimate and scandalous interference in the internal affairs of Avrille by Menzingen recounted in the Steffeshausen Memorandum (which for the sake of brevity, I will not recount here, but which you can read in the attached document, or by clicking on the link above).
Even the American Tertiaries were not exempt from SSPX interference, as Fr. Jurgen Wegner (then, new SSPX US District Superior) sent a letter to them all, notifying them of Avrille's break with the SSPX, and the new illegitimate foundation of "Dominicans," suggesting they jump ship and join on with Steffeshausen. ghyheart.wordpress.com/tag/fr-jurgen-wegner/
What was the end of all this interference?
It was the same in Avrille as it was in Santa Cruz:
"This foundation, made on dishonesty and disobedience, is a violation of religious law. But above all, in the current context, it is a maneuver by Menzingen to weaken the Avrillé community and to have a nice, happy community of Menzingen Dominicans, who neither bark nor bite." www.dominicansavrille.us/tag/bishop-de-galarreta/
Obviously, this illegitimate band of apostates (Avrille's description) and usurpers (Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Gallareta) was not blessed by God, and the group soon disbanded.
But the biggest scandal here is the raw and fraudulent arrogation of jurisdiction Menzingen is trying to exercise over the religious (and all for the aim just stated). It provides a rather sharp contrast to Archbishop Lefebvre's approach and counsel regarding the religious orders, as described in 1991 by Superior General, Fr. Franz Schmidberger:
"The attitude of these two bishops in this affair is very different from Archbishop Lefebvre's attitude vis-a-vis religious, recalled by Fr. Schmidberger in a letter dated 27 May 1991 addressed to the traditional monasteries and convents, where he recognized that Archbishop Lefebvre 'was more of a father, counselor, and friend than an authority in the juridical sense:'
The current situation in Rome, which has lasted for twenty years, and the local ordinaries prevent us, as you know, from having recourse to diocesan or Roman ecclesiastical authority, for everything concerning religious vows, community life, etc.
This is why these past years many of you have had frequent recourse to Archbishop Lefebvre as a substitute authority. Truth be told, he was more of a father, counselor, and friend than an authority in the juridical sense.
After his death, the General Council of the Society of St. Pius X asked Bishop Fellay to fill this role from now on, according to the intention expressed by our founder during his life.
It is in a spirit of service that Bishop Fellay will exercise this office, not so much as a member of the Society of St. Pius X, but as a Catholic bishop. Each community is absolutely free to speak to him or not. Neither he, nor the Society has the least intention of taking control of the other communities in any way. His actions must always be seen as the exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction, and not ordinary, until the day when, in the Church, things return to normal. Allow me on the occasion of this letter to express our ardent desire of maintaining with you ties of profound friendship that have united us for so many years." www.ecclesiamilitans.com/steffeshausen_foundation.pdf (See pp. 5-6)
The approach of Menzingen toward the religious communities this last decade (and longer) is in total contradiction to that of Archbishop Lefebvre, and as Avrille adduced, all to sell them down the river to modernist Rome.
#88: Contradiction (Battle Fatigue - The Psychological Attack):
"Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen to him. Remember that - do not listen." -Fr. Merrin preparing Fr. Karras for the exorcism in "The Exorcist"
The year 2003 saw the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier (one of the original group of six seminarians to bring Archbishop Lefebvre out of retirement to form the SSPX, and former 2nd Assistant to the Superior General), who had been promoting a practical accord with unconverted Rome. His defection was surely cause for introspection on the reasons behind it.
In December of that year, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger authored an editorial for La Roche (internal SSPX bulletin for the Swiss District), in which he recalled that,
That article seemed very much to have had the defection of Fr. Aulagnier in mind when it offered these additional thoughts:
"But more than the attacks from the outside, it is our own inner weakness that we need to fear. Because a prolonged fight is tiring. It is discouraging for a small group to constantly have to fight against the all-powerful current of the masses and of public opinion. Today […] we are tired, we are tired of always being different and we yearn for unity, peace and tranquillity. It is for this reason that on a regular basis, not only some priests, but also the faithful, who had stood firm for a long time in turmoil, suddenly become weak and give up the fight for tradition – whatever may be the reasons they give. This religious fatalism leads to a gradual reduction of expectations… and a premature agreement, i. e. a practical-only union with Rome, without tackling the causes which are at the origin of the crisis of faith, would not only be dangerous but also fake. To how many groups and communities did the official hierarchy not make promises? And all of them became disillusioned, and finally accepted the new Mass, accepted the Second Vatican Council as a whole, and even justified “the spirit of Assisi”." (Ibid.)
Meanwhile, in his letter that same year, Fr. Violette (then District Superior of Canada) offered the following insights and advice regarding Fr. Aulagnier's concern that "I think that there is danger in seeing the conflict last for ages" (a concern reproduced by accordist apologists since 2012, for example, by Fr. Michel Simoulin in his article Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance):
"In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight!...Dear faithful do not lose your serenity, stand calm firm in the unchanging faith of all times. Do not abandon the fight. Sure it is dragging out. But we will win." sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210
Obviously, the post-2012 neo-SSPX is condemned by the analyses of Frs. Pfluger and Fr. Violette in seeking for a livable arrangement with unconverted Rome, "whatever may be the reasons they give."
Note that this fall is precipitated by a psychological, not doctrinal, attack: Despair, and the fear of Rome never converting, and drifting further and further away from the Church (even while possessing all four notes of it).
We would do well, it seems, to recall Archbishop Lefebvre's preparation for a long fight, meditate upon Fr. Pfluger's profound analysis of the true cause of betrayal, and possibly consider from whence this psychological attack arises (i.e., the quote from The Exorcist), being sure not to listen to it.
Every single one of us is susceptible to this attack (and the constant Roman and diocesan interactions are occasions for it to arise within us, though it originates from without).
In any case, it seems clear that the entire leadership of the SSPX has fallen victim to the process described by Fr. Pfluger, whatever the cause.
#89: Change (SSPX News Babes):
On January 19, 2018 the SSPX broke new ground with its branding campaign, and unfurled a new creation, pleasing both to Rome and the secular world:
The SSPX "business woman" to bring you the news on the FSSPX.news YouTube channel:
I guess all the priests, brothers, and men were busy?
Of course not.
This horrendous production was meant to send a message:
The SSPX has spurned the "stuffy" and anachronistic traditional gender roles which it had formerly insisted upon (and the memories of Bishop Williamson which such memories evoke) as the basis for family stability and the right ordering of society. The Society now prefers to follow the trend of the modern secular world of having a good looking woman in manly business attire present "the news."
The message is clear: We are on board with "moderate" feminism:
Career women, emancipated by their pants (as post #53 showed at the US District Office) and "escape" from the monotony and drudgery of unfulfilling home life. Go to college, get a good job. You are man's equal!
This is a long way from imitating the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
But apparently, the SSPX knows its constituency: At the time of this post, the video link above has garnered 85 likes, against only 1 (now 2) dislikes.
#90: Change (Roman Ratification of General Chapter Election):
On January 12, 2018 the French periodical La Croix ran an interesting story based on a January 8 article which appeared on an unspecified SSPX website regarding the upcoming 4th General Chapter and the election of the Superior General and his two Assistants.
On that subject, La Croix provides this interesting excerpt from the article, which also seems to be supplemented by subsequent commentary from Fr. Bouchacourt(*):
"The General Chapter is "above all" an opportunity to "verify that the statutes are faithfully applied, always in the spirit that presided over the foundation," the site says. For this purpose, several aspects of the life of society will be reviewed: "common and liturgical life, apostolate and administration, sanctification of members, fight of the faith".
A so-called interim chapter was held in 2012, at mid-term, to review the life of the Society.
On the surface, it makes no sense for the SSPX to send election results to Rome for ratification, because officially the SSPX was suppressed by Rome in 1975. Hence, the logical reaction of Rome would be to reject the elections results, regardless of what it determined, as illegitimate and illicit.
On the other hand, if with a wink of the eye, Rome has extended to the SSPX a "recognition of tolerance ad tempus" (i.e., a provisional recognition to see how the SSPX will "behave") as the Avrille Dominicans have suggested is the plan, then it makes complete sense why the SSPX would act as though Rome had authority and jurisdiction over their congregation.www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/towards-a-'canonical-recognition-of-tolerance'-ad-tempus/
Regardless of whether or not this recognition of tolerance ad tempus reflects the current understanding between Rome and the Society or not, this novel development is troubling in what it suggests:
The SSPX does not send election results to Rome just so it can ignore Rome's decision if it should refuse to ratify the results!
And while it seems that, to all appearances, the results were agreed upon under the table before the General Chapter even commenced (as evinced by the election of the Superior General and both Assistants in the opening day of the Chapter, whereas it was not until the 9th day of the 2006 General Chapter that these elections were made), without much, if any, deliberation, the fact of sending election results to Rome evinces a subjection at some level to Roman authority. [Link showing dates of 2006 General Chapter rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/07/sspx-general-chapter-declaration.html] [Link showing date of 2006 General Chapter election results: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/07/sspx-general-chapter-declaration.html]
What was the SSPX going to do if Rome rejected the election results? Hold new elections, apparently, until Rome approved of the results? But it seems the SSPX was not worried about that possibility, and this confidence coupled with the haste with which the elections were made and submitted to Rome is interesting to say the least.
But all that aside, the troubling evolution in the internal working of the SSPX here is that the SSPX has consented to surrender control of its highest ranking officers to modernist Roman authority.
And if Rome approves of the current administration (problematic in itself!), it seemingly closes the road to the possibility of future elected officers who might attempt to break the SSPX free of modernist influence in the future (e.g., Fr. Beauvais; Bishop Tissier de Mallerais; etc.).
(*) The style of the La Croix article is confusing, and it is difficult to tell when they are quoting the uncited SSPX article directly, recounting the subsequent comments of Fr. Bouchacourt, or adding their own commentary.
It seems that when they are using quotation marks, they are probably citing from the unspecified SSPX website.
But they also seem to have had da follow-up conversation with Fr. Bouchacourt about that article, as they say, "Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, Superior of the District of France, reminds La Croix."
And then there is the "Canonically, the vote must even be ratified by the Roman authorities..." This sentence is not contained within quotation marks. Is it La Croix putting in its own words something contained in the SSPX article? Is La Croix paraphrasing Fr. Bouchacourt? Is La Croix adding its own commentary without saying so? Hard to tell.
What is clear is that the common understanding of the La Croix article is that the SSPX has sent election results to Rome for ratification, and in the 15 months that have passed since this article ran, we are not aware of any SSPX clarification or denial of this reading of events (which it should and would have done, had there been some misunderstanding on such a critical point).
[All emphasis in the original.]
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
Unfortunately, if you click on that link, you will receive an "Access Denied" message, as the article has been withdrawn from the website.
What was in the article that the SSPX thought twice about publishing?
A caption underneath a picture of a feminist march reveals the PR problem in Rome the SSPX wished to avoid:
"Has Vatican II changed the role of women in society and the Church? And do both the feminist movement and gender theory actually uphold or betray a woman's true dignity?"
In other words, per the branding campaign which rejects criticism of Roman modernism or attacks on Vatican II, this article might have been poorly received in Rome, insofar as it lays the blame for invasive feminism, the collapse of traditional gender roles, and calls it a betrayal of woman's true dignity.
Not the kind of thing you want to say to those you are trying to convince that you have changed!
Curiously, as is the case with many SSPX articles, at bottom there is a list directing the reader to similar content. One of those articles is titled "Is Feminism a Harmful Movement?" That article was once available here: sspx.org/en/feminism-harmful-movement
However, if you click on that link, you once again get an "Access Denied" message.
What was the problem with this article?
Well, with the previous article, the SSPX appeared to be fearful of offending modernist Rome by assigning the blame for feminism to Vatican II. In this latter article, however, there is not a word about Rome or Vatican II. Neither is there any doctrinal error (in fact, the article is classic 1980's SSPX Catholicism from start to finish).
The only plausible reason I can think of to remove the article from circulation is that it contradicts the new open, branded social norms invading the worldly, modern SSPX enclaves, and presents much too stark a contrast between the old and new SSPX:
This old article by Fr. Leo Boyle would be extremely condemnatory toward, say, 100% of the women in the US District office wearing manly attire, or career women bringing you the news on the SSPX YouTube channel (and wearing a business suit to do it), etc.
Consequently, a beautiful article had to hit the memory hole to prevent such comparisons, because remember: "Rome is taking us as we are!" and "We won't quit preaching the truth in season and out of season!"
But there is an undeniable patters here of suppressing traditional content in favor of projecting a more modern image.
Matthew will be attaching both articles, which his wizardry has been able to salvage from the archives.
#92: Contradiction (Hiding the Deal: "We are Back to Square One"):
Bishop Fellay is a man who learned well from Cromwell the need to move incrementally, and at times, to even declare a setback if necessary to calm nerves and tensions arising from a too hasty entrance into conciliar pluralism. Toward this end, he has frequently declared that "We are back to square one" (or similar words to that effect) in order to mask the concessions and compromises made and received, as if to imply that the SSPX was back to where it was before the ralliement.
However, the more perceptive clergy and faithful noticed that whatever Bishop Fellay may have said about being "back to square one" (or equivalent statements), the situation did not return to the previous status quo: Both Bishop Fellay and modernist Rome retained what they had agreed upon over the years. They simply paused temporarily to recover some little stability before moving forward again.
Note carefully also that Bishop Fellay's frequent claims to being "back to square one" have transpired at critical times for the ralliement process, when opposition has been particularly intense, thereby showing the true purpose for making this demonstrably false claim, once again to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to s state of pre-ralliement normalcy in the SSPX.
Here are some examples of this technique in action:
1) The leak of the Letter of the Three Bishops: This letter threatened to split the SSPX wide open, clearly demonstrating the internal gulf separating Bishop Fellay from the other three bishops on the subject of "reconciling" with modernist Rome, who, getting cold feet at the 11th hour and fearing the SSPX might depose Bishop Fellay at the upcoming General Chapter a few months later, rejected Bishop Fellay's April 15, 2012 General Chapter Declaration, and proposed a counter-offer it knew the bishop must reject. This Roman ploy created the illusion of Bishop Fellay cancelling the practical accord with Rome, on the false implication that he was standing hard on Tradition. Consequently, at the ordination sermon in Econe on 6/29/2012, Bishop Fellay stated:
But there was no rejection of a merely practical accord; no rejection of the six conditions which paved the way for it; no withdrawal on the part of Rome of canonical jurisdiction to try its own priests; no return to the pre-2012 status quo.
2) The pastoral guidelines for diocesan authority over SSPX marriages: Many more compromises transpired between Rome and the SSPX between 2012 and the March/2017 guidelines: The granting of jurisdiction to hear confessions and tacit approval to ordain priests being the two biggest maneuvers by Rome. So when the pastoral guidelines were announced, it was too blatant a subjection and entanglement in the modernist/conciliar church to disguise, and a revolt ensued. What was left but to sign on the dotted lone?
A couple months later, once again in Econe at a luncheon after the 6/29/2017 ordinations, Bishop Fellay stated:
But had everything really fallen to the ground? Had Rome taken back its ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions (or did Menzingen renounce it)? Was the SSPX no longer able to ordain priests, administer Extreme Unction, or receive delegations from the diocesan bishops for marriages?
So we see the technique in action once again, to calm tensions and create the illusion of returning to the pre-ralliement status quo, while in reality it was nothing more than a pause to allow some degree of stability to return before marching forward once more.
Or, as [Tradidi.com] so succinctly explains it:
"It is important to make a distinction between the objective and the tactic. The tactic of the Romans and the Neo-SSPX seems to be to oscillate for a while between square 1 and square 2 (or at least to give that impression), just like in order to break metal one only has to bend it back and forth a number of times until it finally snaps. But the objective has always been, and still is, to find a practical way for the Neo-SSPX to cohabitate with the modernists in Rome, to find a place for them in the ecumenical zoo.
To be precise, we are no longer oscillating between square 1 and square 2, but rather between square 5 and square 6. It’s just that all the concessions and cooperation achieved in square 1 to 5 have now become accepted as the new normal by the frogs in the boiling water. As these frogs always extend “the line in the sand” forward, every new step will appear to them as step 2, until one day they will wake up, or rather “arrive without waking up”, at their destination."
In late June, 2012 three Dominican subdeacons from Avrille, France and three Deacons from the Capuchins of Morgon were among those on retreat, preparing for their forthcoming ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood six days hence (on June 29). Abruptly, they were extracted from among their colleagues, and sent back to their respective monasteries, and told they would no longer be ordained.
What had happened? Had someone come forward regarding impediments to the reception of further major orders? Had their seminary professors second-guessed their former favorable appraisals of the candidates' academic or moral fitness?
On the contrary:
According to what has become known as the Steffeshausen Memorandum, Avrille provides some context to the June 25 letter of the General House in which the postponement of ordinations is announced:
"In the afternoon of 21 June 2012, the Secretary General of the SSPX called the Father Prior of Avrille. After having reproached him for playing in the refectory a sermon of a prior of the SSPX who was hostile to the agreement with Rome, he added, 'Father, if we sign an agreement with Rome, will you follow us?' Father Prior, a little surprised, explained to him that if there were an agreement with Rome, it would be on the basis of the Doctrinal Declaration that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome in April and that we had not yet even seen. 'Indeed, you are not familiar with this text, but I cannot tell you about it. You must trust us.'
Father Prior asked him for two days to reflect on the matter, which he obtained with difficulty.
The next day on June 22, at 9:26 AM, without waiting for the two days to pass, we received a fax from Bishop Fellay, followed by an email from the Secretary General, informing us of the refusal to ordain to the diaconate the three brothers who were to be ordained at Econe on 29 June. Bishop Fellay wrote in his fax:
'Confidence in the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X has been shaken in your friary; therefore, I think it is necessary to postpone the ordination of the candidates you have presented for the ceremony to be held 29 June next, at Econe...We will wait until confidence has been restored; this will be better for everyone!'
Fr. Thouvenot wrote in his email:
'I did my best to relate to Bishop Fellay the conversation we had yesterday, but obviously the simple fact that you had your community listen to Fr. Koller's crazy sermon, as well as the fact that you needed more than 24 hours to respond to a simple question of trust in his authority, are enough to convince him that he needs to postpone the ordinations. This morning he forwarded a fax to you informing you of it. In the hope that you will fall into line and reestablish normal relations of harmonious collaboration, I assure you of my religious devotion.'" www.ecclesiamilitans.com/steffeshausen_foundation.pdf (See pp. 7-8.)
A circular letter from the general House to SSPX priests et al by Fr. Christian Thouvenot explained the reason for cancelling the ordinations:
"Finally, Bp. Fellay has decided to postpone the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrillé and Capuchins of Morgon that were to take place in Écône on June 29. This postponement of Holy Orders was motivated simply by the wish to ensure the loyalty of these communities before the imposition of hands on their candidates (cf. I Tim. 5, 22)."rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/for-record-confidentiality-like-water.html
Note that the scriptural citation adduced as a justification for the postponement of ordination is neither here nor there: The moral and intellectual fitness for the reception of Holy Orders which this passage pertains to had long since been ascertained by the superiors of the various candidates. In fact, the stated justification of ensuring loyalty of the respective communities to Menzingen follows nearly as a non-sequitur.
But were not these communities independent and exempt from the jurisdiction of the SSPX bishops? How then could the loyalty of their independent and exempt communities be adduced as grounds for withholding ordinations, when Archbishop Lefebvre had stated on 4/27/81 that he did not want to be Master General of the Dominicans, whereas in October/2012 at the Benedictine monastery at Bellaigue, Bishop de Galarreta informed Father Prior that he must consider Bishop Fellay as taking the place of the Master General of the Order? (Ibid., p.9)
This illegitimate arrogation of "authority" represented a raw and unjust departure from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to the religious communities.
Moreover, to withhold ordination on the basis of these communities' fidelity to the Church and Tradition, and refusing to go along with Bishop Fellay's revolution and sellout is objectively an indefensible abuse of the episcopacy, in the case where the ordinands are all adjudged to be perfectly fit candidates for major orders.
Consequently, the postponement tactic of Bishop Fellay was nothing more than coercion or spiritual blackmail, having nothing to do with the fitness of the candidates, whatever pretext Bishop Fellay may have tried to create with the reference to I Tim. 5, 22.
PS: It would not be the last time Bishop Fellay would abuse his authority in this manner. In 2016, the Capuchins had recently published a book explaining why a deal with unconverted Rome was not acceptable. Soon thereafter, they sided with the 7 French Deans, who wrote a letter of opposition to the SSPX's acceptance of the 2017 "Pastoral guidelines" subjecting SSPx marriages to conciliar authority. Consequently, Bishop Fellay reverted to his extortion tactics, threatening for a 2nd time to withhold ordinations from Morgon. You can read about that incident here: tradidi.com/menzingen-refuses-to-ordain-the-capuchins-deacons
#94: Compromise (The First Rosary Crusade):
On July 16, 2006 Bishop Fellay's Letter to the Faithful announced that:
"The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.
These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:
1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.
2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
We are calling you, therefore, to a true Crusade of the Rosary."
We have already discussed whether or not Bishop Fellay received from Rome what he had requested, and concluded in the negative in post #71 of this thread.
Our concern here is to consider the sincerity of the request made in this first Rosary Crusade.
Because this announcement was made in July/2006, but only three months later, while the Rosary Crusade was still in progress, Bishop Fellay spoke of the "imminent arrival of a motu proprio which would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass." (Cor Unum #85) (*)
And then, of course, in July 2007, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum was promulgated (i.e., almost exactly one year after Bishop Fellay's announcement of the first Crusade.
The obvious concern here is that, with Bishop Fellay's October admission that he expected an imminent motu proprio, it makes it look like Bishop Fellay had called for a Crusade to effect an end already agreed upon, and more than this, that the purpose of the Crusade was not so much to bring about the already agreed upon result, but to make it look as though the Blessed Virgin herself was in support of the reconciliation process (a suggestion that Bishop Tissier explicitly denied, as quoted in post #15 of this thread).
Is there some other explanation? Had Bishop Fellay learned of the imminence of the forthcoming motu proprio sometime between the July announcement launching the Crusade, and his October announcement? Or, had Bishop Fellay launched the Crusade merely in the hopes that Rome would follow through on a promise made to him?
Possibly, but in light of the tremendous scandal caused by the Crusade(s), of which the general House was surely aware, one would have expected that if such were the case, the SSPX would have clarified (particularly in the wake of Fr. Rioult's book The Impossible Reconciliation, wherein this timeline is laid out, and of which the General House was also well aware).
That they did not strengthens such a reading of events, and particularly in light of similar "incongruities" in the subsequent Rosary Crusades, of which we shall now discuss.
(*) I have not yet been able to secure the French version of Cor Unum from Which Fr. Rioult surely quoted from, but I do have the Spanish version, and as you can see, it is substantially (nearly identically) the same, stating:
"At the same time that it is announced to us the supposed imminent appearance of a motu proprio that would replace the one of 1988 to give greater freedom to the Mass, giving it a right equal to the new Mass."
#95: Compromise (The Second Rosary Crusade):
On October 23, 2008 in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #73, Bishop Fellay announced a second Rosary Crusade, this time, to offer Our Lady 1 million chaplets to obtain the "withdrawal"(*) of the "excommunications" through her intercession, and this time, he wanted it quickly:
"3 – Hope of a Rapid Fulfillment of Second Pre-condition
Confronted with these new difficulties, we take the liberty of appealing once more to your generosity. Given the success of our first Rosary Crusade to obtain the return of the Tridentine Mass, we would now like to offer to Our Lady a new bouquet of a million rosaries (5 decades) to obtain the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication through her intercession." archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_73.pdf
By January 29, Bishop Fellay explained in an interview with Libero that:
"We were embraced. Then, first of all, I gave thanks to the Blessed Virgin; it is her gift. It was to obtain her intercession that we gathered together more than one million, seven hundred thousand (1,700,000) Rosaries that had been recited by the faithful who desired the revocation of the excommunications." -Rioult, Fr. Olivier. The Impossible Reconciliation, p. 22 (2013 English-language edition)
But it remains unclear how, once again, Bishop Fellay can attribute the "withdrawal" of the excommunications to Our Lady as a result of the Rosary Crusade, when he himself attributed the measure to his negotiations with Cardinal Hoyos as far back as 2005:
"[Monde et Vie:] Did you expect, Your Excellency, this removal of the excommunication concerning you?
[+Fellay:] I expected it since 2005, after the first letter requesting the lifting of the excommunication which I had sent at the request of Rome itself. Because it is clear that Rome did not ask for this letter in order to refuse to lift the excommunication. As for the moment when it took place, I did not expect it. These past few months, after the ultimatum affair [link], even after it had been minimized, we were mostly cool [in the mutual relations]. Then, I wrote the letter of November 15, which is mentioned in the decree and in my letter to the faithful... [sic]
[Monde et Vie:] Is this decree a sign of the Pope's will?
[+Fellay:] I ascribe it first of all to the Holy Virgin. It is a manifest sign, with an almost immediate response. I had just decided to go to Rome to deliver the result of the Rosary bouquet we had launched at Lourdes with this explicit intention when I received a call from Rome inviting me to go there." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-fellay-interview-division-will-be.html
What is this double-mindedness which can simultaneously acknowledge the result was inevitable (even if the exact day was in question), based on negotiations and assurances from Rome, cook up a quick Rosary Crusade to make it appear that the Blessed Virgin wants a deal, and then attribute to her what had already been prearranged?
But that was Bishop Fellay's story, and he was sticking to it, as he recounted in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors #74 a couple months later:
"When we launched a new Rosary crusade during our pilgrimage to Lourdes last October, we were certainly not expecting such a quick answer from Heaven to our petition! Indeed, as it has happened with our first petition, which our good Mother in heaven answered so effectively through the intermediary of the Vicar of Christ and his motu proprio on the traditional Mass, the Blessed Virgin was pleased to grant us a second grace even more quickly during the same visit to Rome in the month of January when I presented the bouquet of 1,703,000 rosaries for the Sovereign Pontiff’s intentions, I received from the hands of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos the decree remitting the “excommunications.”" sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2009-superior-generals-letter-74-784
Not expecting that which you acknowledge you had been expecting for the last two years?
In the words of Fr. Alphonsus Rodriguez, it would seem that some men are as far from telling a lie, as they are from telling the truth.
-The decree had been assured for at least 2 years;
-The decree left Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer "excommunicated" (In fact, they were not even mentioned in the request!);
-The decree as promulgated implies that the "excommunications" were valid all along, but were remitted as an act of mercy.
If the Blessed Virgin is the cause of the decree, then has she not therefore implicitly condemned the apostolate of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Of course, this is impossible, unless we were deceived to have supported Archbishop Lefebvre all along.
(*): Only six months prior, in his April 14, 2008 Letter to Friends and Benefactors #72, Bishop Fellay was "still asking the Holy Father to annul the 1988 decree of excommunication..." Somehow, by October, the request had morphed from "annul" to "withdraw." Had Bishop Fellay received word from Rome regarding how they were willing to word the document, and modified his request/terminology accordingly? archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/sup_gen_ltr_72.pdf
#96: Contradiction (Further and Further from Archbishop Lefebvre):
In the Bizarro World which is the neo-SSPX, everything is today the opposite of the way it was under Archbishop Lefebvre, as the Society finally comes to terms with Vatican II 55 years after the fact.
The latest account comes to us from England, where it appears that the General House took offense at the decision of the SSPX sisters to abstain from attending the visit of Bishop Egan to the SSPX St. Michael's School.
The problem was not so much the perceived lack of "courtesy," which will surely be used as a stick to beat the sisters with, or even the (well-deserved) embarrassment the abstention may have caused Fr. Brucciani. The real problem was the setback to the ralliement the sisters' abstention may have caused by showing Rome that the SSPX was not yet sufficiently purified of all resistance (even if it is only its women doing any fighting these days).
Here is the official SSPX announcement from Fr. Brucciani:
Fr. Robert Brucciani has asked me to announce the news of Sr. Mary Elizabeth’s decision to leave the Society of St. Pius X. Sister will leave in the next few days and move on to a place which she has not disclosed.
Her decision dates from several months ago but we have only known about it very recently. Superiors have not been successful in guiding her to a change of mind.
The General House has also received requests from the other Sisters for new placements. In view of the difficulties they have experienced for some time now, they are in need of rest and discernment. The Sisters will, therefore, depart from St. Michael’s after Easter and take up residence abroad in different houses of the Society.
I cannot hide that the loss of the Sisters’ community comes as a tremendous blow. It reminds us that the crisis in the Church is still very much alive. Such events can even test our Faith. We must not, however, lose our trust in Divine Providence.
The Junior School staff have convened and for the remainder of this term and for next term, junior classes will be organised as follows: Mrs Joyce will take responsibility for Year 1. Miss Dunn will teach Years 2 and 3. Mr Hooley will teach Years 4, 5 and 6. Several pupils presently in Year 3 will pass to Year 4 after consultation with parents.
This redistribution of classes allows for classes to continue with minimal disruption. I am very grateful to the Junior staff for their readiness to give their all for the good of the children.
The school will seek to employ a new deputy-head of the Junior School in readiness for the new school year. It is too early to know if we will receive a new community of nuns. For this we can only pray. In the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Rev. Fr. John Brucciani Headmaster St. Michael's School Burghclere, Hampshire RG20 9JW
What a bizarre state of affairs in the neo-SSPX, where nuns are punished for desiring to protect themselves from modernism, whereas in the days of Archbishop Lefefbvre, he clearly lauded them for spurning the visits of diocesan, infected bishops.
For example, Bishop Tissier describes the unanimous strength of the sisters, who were all categorically opposed to any kind of arrangement (or even contact) with infected bishops and modernist Rome:
"The Sisters were almost all categorical: “We cannot deal with bishops who have lost the Faith,” said the Dominicans of Fanjeux. The Sisters of Brignoles considered that depending on Rome would force them into having “contacts with their former congregations that are now modernist,” and “that is impossible.” The Society Sisters mentioned “the risk for the Faith and cohesion of Tradition.” Finally, the Carmelites said that it was “a Trojan horse within Tradition” tradidi.com/between-jansenism-and-mondernism (The Biography, Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, pp. 558-559).
"The sisters of Saint-Michel-en-Brenne, the Dominican Sisters of Fanjeaux and Brignoles, are all against the agreement: "We should not depend on Ratzinger, they say... Imagine if he came to give us conferences! He would divide us!" tradidi.com/lefebvre-advice-four-bishops-elect
Well, Fr. Brucciani and Fr. Bouchacourt wanted the visit of Bishop Egan, and in fact, the sisters are now divided.
The more the SSPX adulterates itself with infected modernist Rome, contracting its spiritual AIDS and diverging from the path laid out by Archbishop Lefebvre, the more they suffer the fate he predicted.
Their infidelity has made him a prophet, but at their own expense.
#97: Contradiction (Conciliar Pilgrimage Venues):
In post #86 regarding SSPX-Ecclesia Dei convergence, we supplied a 2014 article from Sean Johnson, which explained the former refusal of SSPX and Ecclesia Dei pilgrimages to have any interaction, and which included something of a "prophetic" forecast:
"So pitched were the differences between the SSPX and various indult/Ecclesia Dei organizations, that they would not even march in the same direction at the annual Chartres (France) Pilgrimage for Tradition, nor would they travel the same route: Leaders would meet in advance of the opposed pilgrimages to ensure the two did not intersect!
This was symbolic of the completely opposite ends which the two groups had in mind: Securing the Mass, on the one hand, vs. securing the entire Faith, on the other.
But those were the good old days. [...]
When the day comes that you see the indultarian and SSPX Chartres Pilgrimages for Tradition marching in the same direction, understand that there is much more symbolism there than meets the eye."
Well, in 2019 they are not yet marching together, but the SSPX just took a big step in that direction.
The process of discreet rallying, in small steps, is therefore continuing before our eyes.
A thousand pilgrims of the Fraternity came "to seek the plenary indulgence attached this year to the sanctuary".
To obtain it, we made the "jubilee journey" approved by the "good" bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, Mgr Dominique Rey. And seven pergolas were piously recollected "presenting the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..." These are certainly excellent examples, but... with the exception of St Gemma Galgani and St Maria Goretti, all beatified or canonized by the Counciliar Popes according to the new procedures in force, those that have also made it possible to "canonise" John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II without difficulty, not to mention Bishop Oscar Romero!
To make matters worse, the FSSPX-News report "forgets" to specify that the false "Saint John Paul II" also appears in the seventh pergola of the journey, as an "artisan of peace through his travels" and an illustration of the gift of Wisdom of the Spirit !
One can imagine the painful surprise of the pilgrims still attached to Archbishop Lefebvre, to see themselves dragged by their pastors along such a "path" of adulterated holiness, and to have to publicly venerate the memory of the one who excommunicated the Founder of the Fraternity!
As we can see, the subtle "traditional-conciliar" mixture led by the General House is now working perfectly: after Bishop Huonder, who will soon be welcomed in Switzerland for his retirement, and the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth, Bishop Egan, to a FSSPX school in England, we will have had the consensual, indulgent and "peaceful" pilgrimage of the FSSPX to Cotignac.
The Conciliar Church and its representatives must no longer be made "angry", such is the instruction inherited from the betrayal of the 2012 Chapter, such is the line inaugurated by Bishop Fellay, conscientiously followed by his successor Pagliarani and the leaders of the current neo-Fraternity.
Thus, day after day, the spirit of resistance to the new religion of Vatican II is blunted; thus, little by little, in general indifference, the precious heritage of Archbishop Lefebvre is being squandered.
In this miserable manoeuvre, Fr de Jorna lent his authority as Superior of the District of France, ... he who was considered a strict, doctrinal, and courageous priest!
But only those who are willing are deceived... ________________________________________
CMS Source: Catholic Fidelity Forum
"the thousand well restored pilgrims begin, chapter by chapter, the jubilee journey, reciting and singing the rosary. First, a journey of the Saints: seven successive pergolas present the life and spirituality of saints of the 19th and 20th centuries, illustrating three by three the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit: Padre Pio, Maximilien Kolbe, Elisabeth of the Trinity, Louis and Zélie Martin..."
in the "..." there are therefore in particular: "Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997). Nobel Peace Prize winner.Found the Missionaries of Charity." "St. Faustina (1905 - 1938. Apostle of mercy." "St John Paul II (1920 - 2005). Peacemaker through his travels." "Bl Chiara Luce Badano (1971-1990). Committed to the Focolare, for unity."
#98: Contradiction (Who Can Approve a Deal with Rome?):
The old SSPX taught us that all revolution inevitable consumes itself, with the initial generation of revolutionaries laying down new principles, and subsequent generations taking those new principles to their logical conclusion, thereby going further than even the original revolutionaries desired or foresaw. The classic example of this was the battle between the Girondists and Jacobins of the French Revolution (the Girondists appearing "moderate" in comparison to the Jacobins, who grabbed from them the revolutionary principles and developed them to their terrible but inevitable conclusion). In the ecclesiastical realm of the post-conciliar Church, we see the same dynamic between the liberals (Kung, Congar, von Balthasar, Paul VI, Bugnini, et al) and conservatives (Ratzinger, Burke, Schneider, Brandmuller, Mueller, et al), with the latter moving in the same direction as the former, but at a slower pace, and trying to paint the revolution with a Catholic veneer, but gutting the religion of its former self all the same.
If, then, the SSPX has embraced the conciliar revolution, we would expect to see the same phenomena transpiring within the Society, and following the model above, it would do so at an increasingly accelerated pace: From "discreet but not secret" beginnings, quietly contradicting Archbishop Lefebvre behind closed doors while preaching tough sermons to maintain appearances in the years from 1997 - 2006, to achieving practical steps toward the accomplishment of a cohabitation with modernist Rome from 2006 - 2012, to open divergence with the Founder from 2012 to the present.
And of course, the evidence of the revolution lies in the casualties along the way: the expulsion or resignation of 70 +/- priests; the rupture of relations with formerly allied religious communities; the suppression of any questioning of the reorientation of the Society reminiscent of Holocaust denial laws in Germany; the 100+ documented changes, contradictions, and compromises which comprise this thread.
In this post, we focus on a very specific manifestation of the SSPX revolution overtaking itself: A new mindset (de facto and unofficial, but seemingly operative) prevailing in the minds of the superiors and capitulants convened at the 2018 General Chapter, explicated by certain assertions made by the Secretary General and 1st Assistant to the Superior General, by which the General Chapter seems to have lost or relinquished its authority to hold deliberative power to decide on an accord with Rome (as declared at the 2012 general Chapter), and had this authority transferred to the Superior General.
But we must first go back in time a bit to track the progression of the SSPX revolution, and make it more visible:
In 2006, the SSPX General Chapter Declaration announced:
"Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, "reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life". archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2006_general_chapter/declaration_of_2006_general_chapter.htm
That statement reflected the post-consecration position of Archbishop Lefebvre that a practical agreement with unconverted Rome:
"That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it." fsspx.org/en/letter-future-bishops
But shortly thereafter, Rome and the SSPX began implementing the agreement to "proceed by stages" toward a practical accord agreed upon in 2000. With the reign of Bishop Fellay freshly secured for another 12 years, it was time pretend Rome was moving toward Tradition by complying with the SSPX's preconditions. But it appears nobody ever considered either that Rome could grant the two conditions as a maneuver, while still remaining hostile to Tradition, or, as was in fact the case, that Rome could pretend to grant the two conditions, with the SSPX pretending along with them, as though checking tasks to be accomplished off a "to do" list, and after having gone through the motions, propose these maneuvers demonstrated a change in Rome which demanded a new response from the SSPX in kind.
So, by the time the 2012 General Chapter had rolled around, the SSPX had convinced most of its clergy and faithful that Rome had granted the two preconditions, engaged in doctrinal discussions, and was now ready to grant the SSPX everything it wanted...but without Rome moving one inch in the direction of Tradition.
It was based upon this pretext that the 2012 General Chapter overturned the operative principle of 2006 with regard to a "reconciliation" with conciliar Rome, and declared:
The pertinent point of the Declaration quoted, for the purposes of this post, is not so much that in laying down conditions for a practical accord with unconverted Rome, the 2012 Chapter had directly contradicted that of 2006 (revolutionary in its own right), but that it had determined that in the event of such a sellout, it would be the affirmative vote of the General Chapter which would authorize it.
This was also explained by the Society shortly before the 2012 General Chapter:
"The General Chapter is the supreme and extraordinary authority of the Society of St. Pius X. The ordinary authority is the Superior General assisted by his council. The General Chapter is the only entity able to amend the Statutes. The “ordinary” General Chapter meets every 12 years. Additionally, the Superior General is allowed to convene an “extraordinary” Chapter for exceptional reasons. After his re-election at the head of the Society in 2006, the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay announced that he will convene an “half-mandate” Chapter to review the current affairs in 2012...The present relationships with Rome will occupy also the deliberations of the Chapter. In the today’ situation, the resolutions or recommendations of the Chapter will be especially important." sspx.org/en/how-it-works-sspxs-general-chapter
But with the former principle of no practical agreement before the conversion of Rome overturned, the revolution accelerated (as so many examples of contradiction, change, and compromise in this thread amply demonstrate), and by the time the 2018 General Chapter had arrived, even the requirement and authority of the General Chapter to authorize the betrayal had fallen to the revolution, with the Superior General now arrogating to himself sole decision making authority to hand the keys to the castle over to unconverted Rome, with the groundwork for this transition of authority being laid just one month before the 2018 General Chapter by Fr. Christian Thouvenot (Secretary General) in an interview with Mitteilungsblatt:
"To answer your question, it is certainly possible that the issue of the status of a personal prelature should come up during the Chapter. But it is the Superior General alone who leads the Society and who is responsible for relations between the Holy See and Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1988, was careful to insist on this."sspx.org/en/news-events/news/what-will-happen-general-chapter-sspx-38474
And at roughly the same time, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger (then 1st Assistant to Bishop Fellay) was explaining to Catholic Family News that:
"It is not exceptional or unusual for the Superior of any Institute in the Catholic Church to be responsible for the legal process of formal recognition by the authorities of the Church. Neither the people, nor the Chapter, nor the majority should deal with the Roman authorities. That’s only the duty of the proper Superior, because the Catholic Church is not a democracy." www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/6/16/interview-with-father-niklaus-pfluger-sspx
Bishop Williamson was quick to react to the suggestion that the Superior General along possessed deliberative power regarding a deal with Rome:
"Firstly, it is not the Superior General who is alone at the head of the Society. By the Statutes of the Society established by Archbishop Lefebvre, it is true that once the Superior General is elected, he has remarkable powers at his disposal and for no less than a 12-year term, because the Archbishop wanted the Superior General to have time and power to achieve something, without being hindered as he himself had been in the Holy Ghost Fathers. But the General Chapter meeting every six or twelve years is above the Superior General, and he must follow the policies decided by it.Now in theory the General Chapter of 2012 decided that any “canonical normalisation” of the Society would require a majority vote of the full General Chapter, but in practice Bishop Fellay has already proceeded to “normalise” with Rome the Society’s confessions, ordinations and marriages. And now his General Secretary is talking as though the General Chapter has nothing further to say, as though Bishop Fellay alone can “normalise” the rest. Are all the forty future Capitulants of July aware of how Menzingen is talking? Do they agree?" stmarcelinitiative.com/liberals-prepare/
But nobody seemed to challenge this new suggestion, and it appears never to have occurred to any who have since accepted this de facto transition of authority that, if Frs. Thouvenot and Pfluger were correct, then the 2012 general Chapter was itself guilty of violating a principle attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, in illegitimately delegating this decision making authority to the deliberative vote of the General Chapter!
If one reads the various SSPX communiques during and after the 2018 General Chapter (e.g., announcements regarding election results, or what passes for a general Chapter Declaration), no official or de jure announcement of such a transition of authority is mentioned. It seems instead to have been a passively accepted "spirit" (just like at Vatican II), insofar as the statements immediately before the Chapter by the Secretary General and 1st Assistant to the Superior General are nowhere contradicted by any of the capitulants.
Consequently, the revolution has progressed nicely, and the General Chapter -de facto- now has the appearance, at least with regard to relations with Rome, of being nothing more than an executive body convened to rubber stamp the will of the Superior general:
In 2006, no practical accord was possible. In 2012, it become possible, but any decision to come to a canonical agreement were the business of a General Chapter(*), and authorized only by an affirmative deliberative vote. By 2018, according to the suggestions of Frs. Pfluger and Thouvenot, it seems to have become the sole business of the Superior General to decide on a deal with Rome.
When the time comes for the SSPX to sign the definitive accord (Something Fr. Pagliarani has announced his desire to achieve in reopening negotiations/discussions with Rome), can anyone imagine a General Chapter, which gives every appearance of having acquiesced in these suggestions, opposing the will of the Superior general?
Consequently, the door is open for the revolution to continue on its merry way, and right in to the conciliar church.
(*): Note that some have observed that, by the signing of the 2012 April 15 Doctrinal Declaration (the day after rejecting the appeal of the three other SSPX bishops not to), Bishop Fellay had already violated, circumvented, and pre-empted the General Chapter's authority to call for a deliberative vote prior to an accord with Rome, which did not convene for another three months.
#99: Contradiction (+Lefebvre Never Required the Conversion of Rome? - Part I):
When in February of 2012, Bishop Fellay "came out" with his abrupt announcement that he would accept a practical accord with modernist Rome, so long as there were "no strings attached," it served as a rather rude awakening to SSPX clergy and faithful who were struggling to be obedient to both him and Archbishop Lefebvre. Faced with a litany of well known sermons, interviews, books, and conferences all seeming to condemn what Bishop Fellay had just announced, it soon became apparent that, just as in the battle between the SSPX and conciliar church, we were now forced to resist Bishop Fellay's reorientation of the SSPX in order to be found faithful to Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre (i.e., to retain the true Faith).
In response, Menzingen would seek to stifle the conversation, first by exhorting the clergy and faithful to abstain from the internet (where the conversation still rages), and then by punishing those priests (and some lay faithful) who pointed out the contradiction between Archbishop Lefebvre's position and Bishop Fellay's, while simultaneously unleashing his own cadre of accordist apologists (among whom Fr. Simoulin, Fr. Celier, Fr. Themann, Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Laisney, and a bit later Fr. Robinson were preeminent) who sought to explain away the contradiction as no contradiction at all. [For an example of discouraging being informed, see this article: sspx.org/en/news-events/news/%E2%80%9Cneed%E2%80%9D-know-all-vs-peace-soul-3073]
One of these arguments was, amazingly, that Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome back to Tradition before he would consider a practical accord.
The following argument by Fr. Simoulin explains it:
"This has been said and written so many times already that you hesitate to say it once again, but Archbishop Lefebvre never made any claim to “converting” Rome or the pope. At the very most, he used to say to those who rebuked him for going to Rome: “Who knows? I may do them a little good!” He never rejected contacts or discussions with Rome, in the hope of gaining freedom for his work and for Tradition. He fought and condemned the modern errors, those from before the Council, those of the Council and those after the Council, but he never fought or condemned Rome or the pope." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/lefebvre-love-church-not-controversy-3297
This caricature of an Archbishop Lefebvre who merely went to Rome -even from 1988 on- to carve out an approved apostolate for Tradition is not supported by the historical record, and stands contradicted by the fact that there is such a thing in existence called "the Resistance" today, the genesis of which arose precisely because the rupture with Archbishop Lefebvre's position was detected by those most faithful sons who were not deceived, and/or would not allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by "finessed" and "nuanced" historical revisionism regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's position vis-a-vis Rome from the time he determined to consecrate bishops.
However, Archbishop Lefebvre was quite clear on his position, once he understood the Romans had no intention of working for the reestablishment of Tradition, which was most famously expressed in the November-December 1988 issue of Fideliter:
"We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.
The revisionists nuanced this argument by seizing upon the phrase "supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions..." They argue that this phrase evinces an Archbishop Lefebvre still willing to negotiate for an agreement with unconverted Rome, and consequently, that openness to such an agreement with unconverted Rome demonstrates Bishop Fellay has not deviated from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Of course, this clever interpretation necessarily leaves out of consideration all that follows, in which Archbishop Lefebvre not only requires the conversion of Rome before an agreement was possible, but even before any discussions were possible: "As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless."
This point is drawn out even more explicitly in another interview Archbishop Lefebvre gave a few months later to Controverses in 1989:
"They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” tradidi.com/one-world-religion-incorporating-latin-mass
How is this not Archbishop Lefebvre demanding the return of Rome to Tradition before an agreement is possible? In truth, Archbishop Lefebvre is going even further than that: He is requiring the conversion of Rome before he will even sit down to doctrinal discussions with them!
But let's continue providing examples of Archbishop Lefebvre's position that there can be no agreement before Rome converts:
“So, when we raise the question of when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: When Rome again crowns our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who dethrone the Lord. The day they again recognize our Lord as King of peoples and nations, it is not us who will join them, but they who will come back to the Catholic Church in which we remain.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 68, March 1989)
Obviously, to re-throne Our Lord requires the rejection of religious liberty and ecumenism, which would again require the conversion of Rome to Tradition.
“And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989) www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-lefebvre-reminds-us/
But if the Romans have continued to try to bring the Society toward the Council (something they have repeatedly explained to Bishop Fellay), obviously they have not converted to Tradition, for which reasons Archbishop Lefebvre says we cannot have relations with them.
"Do not be surprised if we do not come to an understanding with Rome. This is not possible while Rome will not return to faith in the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ ... We collided on a point of the Catholic Faith." (Sierre Conference on November 27, 1988; Fideliter No 89)
"We must not delude ourselves. Principles which now run the Conciliar Church are increasingly, openly, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Finally the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with [such] a hierarchy.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
And in a letter to the four bishops-elect, Archbishop Lefebvre explained to them when the proper time to come to an agreement with Rome would be:
Yet Fr. Simoulin and company want me to believe that post-1988 Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome before signing an agreement?
In the next installment, we shall see how the accordists proposed to deal with this mountain of contradictions.
#100: Contradiction (+Lefebvre Never Required the Conversion of Rome? - Part II):
In the previous post, we provided several quotes to rebut the claim of Fr. Simoulin et al. that Archbishop Lefebvre never required the conversion of Rome before considering a practical accord. Of course, we are speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre from the time he had determined to consecrate bishops in 1988, until his death in March - 1991.
But consider that Bishop Fellay had been maneuvering for precisely such an accord since at least 1997, with his sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC. It would be naive to believe in all those years of discussions with the GREC, meetings with Rome, and the eventual plan to "proceed by stages" toward a "reconciliation" following upon the 2000 SSPX pilgrimage to Rome that it never occurred to him (or any of his accordist associate and confreres) that eventually he was going to run into the stumbling block of Archbishop Lefebvre's well known position.
How to move beyond all those well known quotes, and the operative principle vis-a-vis relations with Rome which had governed those relations for 20 years?
The "solution" or blueprint was provided by the shadowy and subversive figure of Fr. Gregoire Celier, whom we discussed in post #69 of this thread, with regard to his 2007 book Benedict XVI and the Traditionalists, which the French District Superior (Fr. Regis de Cacqueray) heavily promoted throughout France.
The introduction to that article explains that Fr. Celier's thoughts have been adopted by Bishop Fellay, removing all speculation and doubt on that point:
"Fr. Celier, in this somewhat lengthy document, lays out the principles and rules by which the archbishop made his decisions. It is not an attempt to play prophet; rather, if we more deeply understand this objective methodology, we can both better understand why the archbishop said specific things in certain situations and why the same prudential methodology is followed still today by Bishop Fellay and the Society of St. Pius X."
What was this "methodology," which would help circumvent Archbishop Lefebvre's prohibition on negotiating a practical accord with modernist Rome?
Fr. Celier rightly explains one principle in understanding the thoughts of another is to determine whether they are systematic thinkers, or pragmatic thinkers:
"In the intellectual order, one can rather conveniently classify minds as being either “systematic” or “pragmatic” (without any pejorative sense in either case). “Systematic” minds are more often found among intellectuals, in whom thought predominates. They approach any situation in terms of the principles, the “system” with which they are imbued, and seek to bring the circumstances of the situation into the unity of the system. Hence their thinking, their expression and their actions are very consistent (or try to be), but sometimes they lack flexibility in face of reality. Although “pragmatic” minds also live according to principles, they initially approach a situation by analyzing that situation, its concrete circumstances and its implications. Upon that initial analysis they project the light of their principles so as to determine a course of action. Unlike the “systematic minds”, however, they are not especially concerned about checking whether what they are going to say or do at that moment is, formally and substantially, perfectly in harmony with what they have said or done previously, or with what they are going to say or do afterward. These “pragmatic minds”, therefore, are extremely flexible in adapting to reality, but they run the risk of appearing incoherent (at least) in the long term. Men of action, such as politicians, military men, and industrialists, are obviously first-degree “pragmatics”.
There is no problem with the principle as such, but it is in the application of this principle that the "magic" happens:
By being correctly labeled a pragmatic thinker, and therefore subject to change and seeming incoherence as circumstances dictate, the permanence and immutability of the 1988 and post-1988 position of Archbishop Lefebvre vis-a-vis Rome suddenly becomes questionable again: After all, they say, "who can really say whether Archbishop Lefebvre would maintain his 1988-1991 position according to circumstances in 2000, 2012, or 2019? After all, he was a pragmatic thinker!"
Consequently, the SSPX, in reliance upon the subversive scheming of Fr. Celier, treated the faithful to articles like Fr. Simoulin's "We Cannot be 88ers," in which it is alleged that:
"Whatever the state of Rome may be, of all that still remains that is disturbing in Rome, plain common sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes than those of 1988! Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"! rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/04/rome-sspx-we-cannot-be-88ers.html
Translation: Archbishop Lefebvre's positions were good for his times, but nobody can say that he would hold the same position in today's circumstances, because as Fr. Simoulin states in a completely solipsistic swoon:
"We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me; but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost."
Even Bishop Fellay's conciliar allies like Bishop Athanasius Schneider took the cue, declaring that today Archbishop Lefebvre would certainly sign a deal:
"A personal prelature would be perfectly suited to the reality of the Society of St. Pius X and its mission. I am convinced that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted gladly and gratefully this official ecclesial structure and the Church’s recognition of the apostolate they accomplish." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bp-schneider-restoring-justice-sspx
Archbishop Lefebvre was practical, you see, and today he would see how much better things are, and what a great deal he was getting!
But here is the truth of the matter:
-There is no doubt that Fr. Celier's principle of distinguishing between systematic and pragmatic thinkers is a legitimare hermeneutic;
-There is no doubt that, of the two types of thinkers, Archbishop Lefebvre was pragmatic;
-However, it is not the Resistance, but Menzingen, Fr. Celier, and the accordists of the SSPX who have failed to properly assess how, when, and why Archbishop Lefebvre's pragmatic propensity to react to changing circumstances actually manifested itself, which was this:
Archbishop Lefebvre negotiated with unconverted Rome for almost 15 years (i.e., from the time of the suppression of the SSPX until the time he decided to consecrate bishops), because as he stated, he waited until the last minute for Rome to show a little loyalty to Tradition. But once he became certain that Rome was not negotiating in good faith for the return of Tradition, and was just waiting for him (and Tradition) to die, THIS was the trigger and circumstance which changed his thoughts and actions with regard to the impossibility of a practical accord with unconverted Rome, and having secured through these episcopal consecrations the principle of continuity and perpetuation of the Society, he would never again be in a position to need to negotiate. As he said, he was content to wait for Rome's return to the Church.
Moreover, there were no substantial changes in Rome between 1998 - 1991 which would have altered his position, and, contrary to the solipsistic statement of Fr. Simoulin quoted above (as Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged, when he observed that Rome was still the same old modernist Rome, a year after Fr. Simoulin's crazy statement to the contrary), there have been none since:
It is absolutely clear and certain, therefore, that Archbishop Lefebvre would not entertain the possibility of an accord with modernist Rome in 1991, 2000, 2012, 2019, or 2219, howsoever the disingenuous misapplication of Fr. Celier's legitimate principle may contrive to say otherwise.
[All emphasis in the original.]
"Charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act." - Cardinal Pie
#101: Compromise (The Argentinian Recognition: Was the SSPX Already Canonically Approved?):
On April 13, 2015 the country of Argentina "recognized" the SSPX as Catholic.
The official bulletin of the Argentinian government declared:
That according to Protocol N. 084/15, of February 23, 2015, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Mario Aurelio Cardinal POLI, requests that the "FRATERNITY OF THE APOSTLES OF JESUS AND MARY" (PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X) be held, up to the moment in which it finds its definitive juridical framing within the Church Universal, as an Association of Diocesan Right, according to what is established by canon 298 of the Code of Canon Law, being in fieri [henceforth and in the meantime] a Society of Apostolic Life, with all the benefits that correspond to it, and complying with all obligations to which the same refers, also accepting all responsibilities that belong to the diocesan Prelate. [emphasis added] That to the aforesaid fraternity be accredited its character as a public juridical person within the ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, according to the norms of the Code of Canon Law." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/argentina-formally-recognizes-sspx-as.html
Ecclesia Dei secretary, Archbishop Guido Pozzo was quick to explain this was not THE recognition of the SSPX:
"I am glad that in Argentina this solution could have been found, which does not involve the Holy See, let it be made clear. It is not a juridicial recognition of [the Society of] Saint Pius X as a clerical society, the question of the legitimacy of the exercise of the priestly ministry of their priests remains open. But it is an ulterior sign of good will regarding this reality by the Catholic Church."
And Menzingen was equally quick to throw cold water on the "recognition," declaring it a merely administrative and non-canonical process:
"Cardinal Poli’s document has no canonical authority, for he cannot substitute himself for the Roman authority that alone can settle the Society’s canonical status. It is simply a procedure that allows the State of Argentina to make an administrative decision until “a definitive juridical framework is granted (to the Society) in the universal Church...it is nothing more than a strictly administrative procedure in the restricted context of the Republic of Argentina." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/argentina-recognizes-sspx-roman-catholic-7845
But is that really all there is to it? Was it all much to do about nothing?
Some think otherwise:
"At Adelante La Fe [the largest Spanish-language indult blog, similar to Rorate Coeli in content and perspective] we have asked that this prominent lawyer make an assessment of the various information, from both sides, which tries to downplay this news indicating that it is something merely "administrative". This is his response:
"After the news of the recognition of the SSPX by the Argentine State, communiques have been released from both parties, that obscure rather than clarify.
"I reread the relevant parts of the Code of Canon Law and am even more convinced that there is no way to consider the SSPX part of the Church in Argentina and not in the rest of the world. It violates any legal logic.
"Regarding a purely administrative process -in order to freely exercise the apostolic life-, it has no basis because for decades they have been in our country with a seminary, churches, schools and other property that could have well acquired a non-profit civil association. What is the administrative improvement? Evade Income Tax? To obtain wages and subsidies?
"There would be a very serious situation if they are not in communion with Rome but receive benefits in Argentina as "Romans".
And a couple weeks later, Rorate Coeli posted a guest response by a priest writing under the pseudonym "Fr. Pio Pace," who observed:
"What is most interesting, in fact, is evidently the confirmation of Cardinal Poli: as it is clear from the preamble of the decree of recognition, he asked that this Society "be held" (sea tenida) as an Association of Diocesan Right, according to Canon 298 of the Code of Canon Law, in the expectation that it will become (in fieri de ser) a Society of Apostolic Life without vows (an old category of the 1917 Code, under which the SSPX had been recognized by the Bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland, on November 1, 1970, before its dissolution), a status which the Society claims according to its statutes, approved by Ecclesiastical authority.
That is, not only did the Cardinal-Archbishop of Buenos grant a public certification of Catholicity to the SSPX, but he confers to it a juridical status similar to that of a diocesan association. The diocesan associations, called "associations of the Christian faithful" (among others, religious communities in formation make use of this framework) "strive in a common endeavor to foster a more perfect life, to promote public worship or Christian doctrine, or to exercise other works of the apostolate such as initiatives of evangelization, works of piety or charity, and those which animate the temporal order with a Christian spirit." (Canon 298, § 1)" rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-society-of-saint-pius-x-recognized.html
Are you catching this?
Is it sinking in?
Don Pace is saying that, contrary to what Menzingen and Ecclesia Dei say, there is no need for the Pope to authorize an Association of Diocesan Right. That power and authority is by definition completely within the jurisdiction and competence of the local ordinary (as opposed to an Association or Society of Pontifical Right, which receives its authority directly from the Pope):
"It is absolutely possible, in legal terms, to consider that Cardinal Poli proceeded thus to what is equivalent to a kind of "erection" of a diocesan association for the SSPX:
- First: because he recognizes to it, publicly, the character of Catholic, which flows forth usually from the erection foreseen by Canon 312;
- Second: because he clears up that it is "Diocesan";
- Third: and because this association proposes to teach Christian doctrine in the Church's name and to promote public worship -- which can only be the case for associations erected by Ecclesiastical authority.
But supposing that it means nothing, it would at least remain that Cardinal Poli considers the SSPX as a Catholic association constituted by private agreement (Canon 299), to which he granted, exceptionally, specific rights." (Ibid.)
In the same article, "Don Pio Pace" also comments on the quick reaction from Menzingen, diminishing the significance of the Argentine recognition:
"As soon as knowledge of this intervention of the Cardinal of Buenos Aires was made known to the wider public, the General House of the SSPX immediately limited its reach. According to a communiqué published by its DICI agency, of April 13, 2015, essentially for internal purposes, Menzingen (the General House) affirms that, "Cardinal Poli’s document has no canonical authority," and that all of that, "is nothing more than a strictly administrative procedure in the restricted context of the Republic of Argentina.” That no one thinks, above all, that there could be a punctual and partial canonical recognition!" (Ibid.)
And that indeed is the nagging question: What exactly is the canonical status of the SSPX today?
Were they already "regularized" in 2015, while everyone was sedated by their downplaying of the significance of the recognition?
Don Pace explains something like the "Chinese Approach" may be what has happened here:
"It is a remarkable juridical step. In the language of canonists who are concerned with the institutional fate of the SSPX, the "Chinese" approach is often recalled. The word refers to the fact that, after the fall of the Soviet iron curtain, and despite the permanence of a brutal tyranny in China, the Holy See has tried a "workaround" operation, basing itself on the wish of a good portion of the members of the "Patriotic Church" to return to Rome. One might summarize the Roman attempt thus: a growing number of the bishops named by the "Patriotic Church" have secretly received (but it is an open secret) "powers" granted by Rome, that is to say, papal investiture (see, for example, this report by Sandro Magister).
In an analogy, for the SSPX what happens today is that, in certain dioceses, confession powers, even permanent ones, and canonical delegations to receive matrimonial consent, even permanent ones, are at times granted to certain priests of this Society. In particular cases, the canonical incardination of priests of the SSPX by diocesan authorities was even contemplated -- with such priests remaining members of this community and exercising their apostolate within it.
In the perspective of a gradual canonical recognition, we could perhaps also imagine that "powers" be granted provisionally to the bishops of the SSPX, which perhaps might already have happened occasionally. Naturally, the administrative-canonical recognition in Buenos Aires -- set up, absolutely without a doubt, by the Pope himself -- could create precedent and be repeated on this or that diocese for SSPX groups, or friendly communities of religious men or women, schools, etc." rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-society-of-saint-pius-x-recognized.html
In fact, in 2019 we know that precisely that which Don Pace envisioned in 2015 has come to pass:
We know Bishop Fellay received jurisdiction from Rome to try his priests of certain crimes.
We know that the SSPX has received ordinary juridsdiction to hear confessions.
There have been other grants of powers and rights (e.g., to say Mass in the Roman basilicas; tacit approval to ordain priests; delegations to receive the consents to marriages; etc).
For all these reasons, we ask the question we started with in the title of this post:
Has the SSPX already been canonically regularized, with the grants of rights and powers being incrementally unveiled so as not to startle the faithful (and clergy)?
We cannot say for certain, but the arguments tending in that direction by canonists do not seem to be without merit.
With the 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI to the papacy, the discussion regarding the validity of the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration heated up, as Benedict XVI was the first pope to be consecrated a bishop according to the new rite. A determination of the issue had huge implications: If the form of the new rite was invalid, or even doubtful, would Benedict XVI truly be the Bishop of Rome?
Until that time, the matter regarding the validity of the form of the new rite was a disputed matter open for debate within the Society, with some of its best theologians declaring the new rite "doubtful."
One such theologian was none other than Bishop Tissier de Malleris, who, having received the book of Dr. Coomaraswamy La Drame Anglican, which declared the new rite invalid, responded in a 1998 letter:
"Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr. Rama Coomarawamy’s pamphlet “Le Drame Anglican.”
After reading it quickly, I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.
The [phrase] “spiritum principalem” in the form introduced by Paul VI is not sufficiently clear in itself and the accessory rites do not specify its meaning in a Catholic sense.
As regards Mgr Lazo, it would be difficult for us to explain these things to him; the only solution is not to ask him to confirm or ordain.
Yours very truly in Our Lord Jesus Christ,
+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
PS: Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please." www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/
A few years later, in 2006, a group called the International Committee Rore Sanctifica[http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/contact.html] based out of France conducted a study which concluded in the invalidity of the new form of episcopal consecration, and did so persuasively enough for the SSPX and its assets to spring into action, and jump to the defense -without saying so- of Pope Benedict XVI, with a flurry of studies concluding in favor of the validity of the new rite:
In 2007, former US District Superior, Fr. Peter Scott wrote an article titled "Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?," which explained to the faithful why is was essential to conditionally ordain priests (and bishops) coming to the Society from the conciliar church, who had been ordained in the new, doubtful rites:
"When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.
We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments, which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679. Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)
Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments.[Emphasis - The Catacombs]One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity." sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
But in the same article, Fr. Scott states his belief that Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P. (Avrille) had demonstrated the validity of the form of the new rite of episcopal consecration (a disputed contention within Tradition and the SSPX), but nevertheless proceeds to cite another 2007 Le Chardonnet article by Fr. Nicolas Portail (SSPX), in which the latter declares:
"The authors correctly observe that this rite is the vehicle of a conception of the episcopacy according to Vatican II. It also shows that the functions that are special to the episcopal order (ordaining priests, consecrating churches, administering confirmation...) are not mentioned in the consecratory preface, in opposition to other prefaces in the Eastern Rites. In addition, the specific error of collegiality is explicitly mentioned in the consecrator’s allocution. It cannot be denied that this rite is, from a traditional perspective, weak, ambiguous, imperfect, defective, and manifestly illicit."
Still, Fr. Scott's emphasis had subtly shifted the conversation away from the validity of the form, to the validity of the intention of the consecrating bishop.
Additional articles of Fr. Celier (there he is again! Any time there is a chance to strike at Tradition, he emerges!) and Fr. Calderon supplemented those of Fr. Pierre Marie and Fr. Scott.
The validity of the form was now beyond question in SSPX circles: Only a sedevacantist (allegedly) could question it!
But as the quotation from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais demonstrates, it was not always so (and nobody ever accused Bishop Tissier of being sedevacantist).
This new position/policy was implemented to smooth the way for negotiations with Pope Benedict XVI.
In this regard, the aforementioned International Committee Rore Sanctifica seems to have made a rather prophetic response to all the pro-validity SSPX rebuttals to its study. Speaking of these allegedly validly consecrated bishops, it stated:
"One wonders whether or not one will in the near future see these individuals on the altars (tables) used by the Society. Clearly the author(s) are happy to sleep with strange bedfellows." www.the-pope.com/letterpmv.html
Well, that day has come:
The advent and acceptance of conciliar Bishop Huonder (Diocese of Chur, Switzerland) by the SSPX is the personification and fulfillment of that prophecy.
In short, it is a double compromise and change: For the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will conclude the new rite is certainly valid.
And for the sake of negotiations with modernist Rome, we will no longer maintain our tutiorist position with regard to sacramental validity. [Emphasis - The Catacombs]
#103: Change (Perpetual Engagements Before Major Orders):
It had always been the policy of the SSPX for its priests to pass through a series of temporary engagements (usually spanning at least nine years, or, three sets of three) before being allowed to make their permanent engagements to the Society.
In an article by former US District Superior, Fr. Peter Scott, the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre is explained thusly:
But regarding the December, 2018 engagements, the SSPX announced a change in policy in this regard:
"This event marked the implementation of a new policy for the Society, requiring that any candidate for major orders be perpetually engaged within her family. The desire of the Church that her clergy be firmly planted in one of her dioceses or religious families flows from the doctrine of the Mystical Body...For this reason the Society of St. Pius X demands that every soul she gives to the priesthood be submitted to authority, bound for life to her family and in turn bound to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Stability and integrity will be the fruits of this commitment, so needed today." stas.org/en/news-events/news/first-and-final-engagements-sspx-new-policy-priestly-ordinands-43080
Note that this change, in addition to modifying (yet again) the SSPX Constitutions, represents a rejection of Archbishop Lefebvre's policy.
What is the cause?
Fr. Rene Trincado seems to have put his finger on it quite succinctly in an email to Sean Johnson:
"The SSPX has made an adaptation of its statutes to CIC 1983, which in canon 1037 says: An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate are not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless they have assumed the obligation of celibacy in the prescribed rite publicly before God and the Church or have made perpetual vows in a religious institute. CIC 1917 does not speak of a requirement regarding vows to receive the diaconate. Most likely, the authorities of the SSPX have made this change thinking about the agreement with Rome." www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-morphing-perpetual-engagements-as-seminarians/30/
Just one more example of the mutation of the SSPX in preparation for a practical accord with apostate Rome, despite all the lip-service about "accepting us as we are."
[NB: This new policy represents at least the 3rd direct change to the SSPX Constitutions in pursuit of a practical accord with unconverted Rome (the other two being the 2012 decision to accept a merely practical accord with unconverted Rome, overturning the 2006 general Chapter Declaration, and the 2018 General Chapter creation of the General Councillor positions supplementing the General Council of the SSPX.]
#104: Change (A Joint SSPX-Huonder Declaration: "One Sole Purpose?"):
On 5-20-19, the SSPX issued a joint communique of Fr. Pagliarani and conciliar Bishop Vitus Huonder which was remarkable not only for its tradcumenical-conciliar collaboration (a rejection in praxis of Archbishop Lefebvre's well known command in Spiritual Journey to stay separated from conciliar Rome for so long as it does not return to Tradition, cited elsewhere in this compilation), but for the "dexterous" presentation of facts it recounted when it announced:
"According to an intention that he stated long ago, Bishop Huonder is retiring to a house of the Society of Saint Pius X. The one sole purpose of this step is to dedicate himself to prayer and silence, to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, and to work for Tradition, the only way of renewing the Church." sspx.org/en/news-events/news/joint-communique-47934
Is this really the "one sole purpose" of Bishop Huonder's advent at the SSPX boys school in Wangs, Switzerland?
Not according to Bishop Huonder!
According to a January/2019 statement of his own Diocese of Chur (Switzerland):
As I stated in the comments section of The Remnant:
"Can someone explain to me how the joint declaration’s statement that “the one sole purpose” for Bishop Huonder’s retirement to the sspx school is to dedicate himself to prayer, silence, say the TLM, and work for the restoration of Tradition is compatible with the Diocese of Chur’s Kathnet announcement of a couple months ago, acknowledging that the bishop has been given this assignment by Francis to be a liaison between the SSPX and Rome?
Moreover, am I to believe the same bishop recently pictured celebrating the new Mass with altar girls, and giving communion in the hand, has suddenly changed his spots, and conveniently became a traditionalist on the day of his retirement?
And of what does Bishop Huonder’s newfound “traditionalism” consist, beyond saying the old Mass? Does he suddenly reject his own former ecumenism? Does he reject the errors of Vatican II? What are his thoughts on the new questionable sacraments (eg., vegetable oil for extreme unction)? Etc., etc.
Just a few days after tossing cold water on the initiative of theologians who were seeking to continue the deposition process of Francis (initially begun by Cardinal Burke, and continued by the Correctio Fillialis), the SSPX now sends a disturbing message to its faithful:
We are on the same side as the modernists.
The SSPX, which once served as a bastion of truth, today tells a blatant falsehood through its superior general, regarding the purpose of Bishop Huonder’s arrival (contradicted by the bishop himself).
There is only one way this joint declaration is compatible with truth (at least subjectively):
The SSPX today believes that working for a practical accord with unconverted Rome = “working for Tradition.”
The previous generation of SSPXers were indoctrinated by Archbishop Lefebvre after the consecrations to hold such a position as the gravest danger to the faithful (see his 1991 Fideliter interview).
Conversely, the last 20 years of SSPX leadership have striven mightily (and successfully) to inculcate exactly the opposite principle: Legal recognition is the primary goal.
#105: Contradiction (SSPX Raising Money for the FSSP!):
Several entries in this compilation have highlighted the neo-SSPX's abandonment of Archbishop Lefebvre's opposition to collaboration with the "regularized" former traditionalists, such as the FSSP, et al.
It is important to recall the primary causes of the Archbishop's opposition to this collaboration, which ran quite a bit deeper than mere sour grapes over their abandonment of the fight for the restoration of Tradition:
1) Those communities all compromised at the level of doctrine, in trading legal recognition and the permission to say the old Mass for accepting the hermeneutic of continuity with regard to the documents of Vatican II (and the errors those documents contain, such as religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism).
2) In doing so, they hurt the Church, and its chances for recovery, because they no longer represent a corrective challenge to the modernists in Rome (and the modernist hierarchy worldwide).
3) And consequently, in thinking themselves to have cut a deal for their own particular good, they have deceived themselves.
Consequently, for these reasons, to collaborate with such groups is to imply an approval of their compromise, which presents a scandal to the faithful who strive not to make the same compromise, and work for the restoration of Tradition to the Church (and churchmen).
It is for all these reasons, Arhcbishop Lefebvre said that the rallied communities are doing the work of the devil, and consequently, were the SSPX to collaborate with these groups, it too would be collaborating in the work of the devil.
Today, a new report reaches us from the French Reconquista blog, which represents an acceleration of SSPX tradcumenism, and a new level of personal involvement and moral culpability on the part of SSPX faithful:
The SSPX Holy Family school in Levis (Quebec) will host a play for the benefit of the Our Lady of Mount Carmel (FSSP/diocesan) school:
SSPX faithful will be made to financially support what Archbishop Lefebvre called "the devil's work," thus incurring direct moral collaboration and culpability in the betrayal of Tradition and the Church.
SSPXers raising money for the priests who betrayed Tradition?!
"In Canada, Our Lady of Mount Carmel School, whose chaplaincy is provided by FSSP priests and with the support of the Archbishop of Ottawa, presents this classic [the play Antigone]... at the Holy Family School of the FSSPX in Lévis... for the benefit of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel School!
For those who doubt:
Site of the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel school where you will find:
'Our institution, which enjoys the support of the Archbishop of Ottawa, His Excellency Most Reverend Terrence Thomas Prendergast, SJ, is very fortunate to be accompanied by a priest who teaches catechism and provides spiritual care for the students.'"
#106: Compromise (SSPX Marriages Invalid, According to the SSPX)
If the conciliatory SSPX, after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, began to doubt the existence of the state of grave public and general spiritual necessity (which has not only permitted, but compelled the existence of its apostolate against the unreasonably opposed will of the modernist authorities), then it was only a matter of time before it lost confidence in its own apologetics, and the doctrine of necessity in particular:
If there is no state of necessity, then how can SSPX sacraments, which depend upon the issuance of jurisdiction for validity (e.g., marriages, confessions) be valid, since it is precisely the request of the faithful trapped in the state of necessity from which supplied jurisdiction springs?
No necessity = no supplied jurisdiction.
So it was inevitable that the SSPX, now doubting the existence of the state of necessity, and having lost sight of the magnitude of the present crisis in the Church at large (and in Rome in particular), should begin to doubt the state of its own sacraments, and consequently move to remedy this perceived defect.
As a result, I was not surprised to learn that in France, Fr. Andre of the SSPX District office now requests of the various diocesan authorities the delegation to receive the consents of the spouses for all marriages, and more than this, considers SSPX marriages performed in the absence of this delegation to be invalid.
Here is the story, as recounted on the French Resistance forum by “CMS:”
Last year, a wedding took place in a French priory of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
This marriage had been prepared by a priest of the priory, and he agreed with the bride and groom to dispense with the delegation of jurisdiction of the local bishop, and to conclude the marriage according to the "extraordinary form" provided for by canon law in the situation qualified as a "state of necessity".
But since it is a union celebrated within the framework of the Fraternity, the preparatory file had to go through the Office of Canonical Affairs of the District of France (Father Jean-Paul André), which applied the internal directives in force since 2017, and referred the matter to the diocese territorially competent to request the delegation in favour of the priest who had prepared the engaged.
But what was probably not foreseen in this case (or not quite certain)... is that the delegation was indeed granted by the diocese, and this by name for the benefit of the priest in question!
On the day of the wedding, faced with the problem and assuming the logic of his position - supported by the engaged - this priest preferred to "give up his place" to one of his confreres, to express his refusal of the diocesan delegation.
This is how the marriage took place: the priest holding the delegation remained in retreat, and it was his confrere who received the consents "outside the delegation", i.e. under the regime of "supplied jurisdiction" (which is satisfied with the assistance of the two witnesses for the validity of the marriage).
Upon learning of the incident, the priest was reprimanded. But the matter did not end there....
We now learn that a canonical procedure has been implemented by the Fraternity to regularize this marriage, a posteriori!
It is a sanatio in radice, literally a "healing" (restoration) at the "root" (origin) of a cause of disability. The procedure in question effects the revalidation of marriage while exempting the spouses from the renewal of their consent, by allowing, through a legal fiction, to consider the sacrament as valid since its conclusion (cf. R. P. Héribert JONE, Précis de Théologie morale catholique, Salvator - Casterman).
Sanatio is in principle granted by the Holy See, but also (within certain limits) by the local Ordinary. It should be noted that it may be carried out with the knowledge of the spouses, but also without the knowledge of one or both spouses.
Scope of the procedure in the case under consideration:
The use of a sanatio in radice for this marriage means that the person in charge of canonical affairs of the FSSPX, and the Superiors of the Fraternity (Suresnes? Menzingen?), in concert with the diocese or the competent Roman dicastery, considered that the marriage was null and void because of the absence (or because of refusal) of the diocesan delegation, and that it was not possible in these circumstances for the second confrere to invoke the state of necessity.
The "conciliar" ecclesiastical authority and the Fraternity therefore considered it necessary, by mutual agreement, to validate this "void" marriage.
1°) The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X no longer allows priests to refuse diocesan jurisdiction for marriages. Such a refusal (clearly manifested) thus officially invalidates their marriages, and moreover testifies, for their hierarchy and for Rome, to a "schismatic" spirit.” [...]
As I stated above, this was all entirely predictable, such that in 2017, upon the issuance of Cardinal Muller’s “pastoral guidelines” regulating SSPX marriages, I could already state the obvious:
“Finally, and it cannot be emphasized enough, what must be retained is that by not opposing these pastoral guidelines, and submitting to them, Menzingen is implicitly acknowledging the invalidity of its own marriages (and this in turn helps facilitate the conciliar motive of inculcating doubt about the validity of the sacrament in the clergy and laity, as a means of garnering support for the canonical agreement).
This latest sad episode from the French District follows only two years after the issuance of the April 2017 guidelines, and it is clear that most SSPX priests now fear to operate outside the confines of ordinary jurisdiction: Their loss of grasp upon the magnitude of the present crisis has robbed them of confidence in the applicability of supplied jurisdiction, and therefore trapped them into compliance with modernist diocesan authority, lest that jurisdiction be withheld.
But, excepting this particular case, Menzingen has been exceedingly stealthy (and skillful) in hiding these doubts from the faithful. Its new modus operandi is described in this post:
Note that a sanatio in radice (i.e., radical sanation) is not the same thing as convalidation of a marriage. In convalidation, the couple makes new vows (i.e., a renewal of consent), presumably in front of a delegated/authorized witness, and this makes the marriage valid from that moment. In a sanatio in radice (which is what happened in France), the couple need not even be aware that the Holy See (or bishop) has retroactively "healed" the marriage from the beginning, or, 'in the root" (ex tunc).
Within the context of the ralliement of the SSPX, obviously, convalidation would be much more disruptive, since it would necessitate individual couples approaching their bishops all over the world, and acknowledging by the very act of their convalidation that they believe their SSPX marriages to be doubtful or invalid.
This in turn calls out the SSPX, since it would beg the question: Why have we faithful been lied to and deceived into becoming fornicators? It would run the risk of engendering resentment toward the SSPX from its own faithful.
To avoid all that (and to save face), sanatio in radice is the way to go: It can be done without anyone ever being the wiser, or any public proclamation ever being made.
It is rumored that this was done in Campos (though I have yet to succeed in uncovering any documentation to support this claim, it was told me by an SSPX priest).
Because of that rumor, I contacted the local Archbishop of St. Paul (Archbishop Hebda), announced I was married by the SSPX in 2007, and inquired as to whether there been any radical sanation of pre-2017 SSPX marriages.
In his response, the conciliar Archbishop sticks to his guns:
The pre-2017 marriages of the SSPX are invalid, and there has been no sanatio in radice of these marriages.
In short, it seems that Rome reserves that final lure until AFTER the final capitulation:
No sanatio in radice until the betrayal is finalized (i.e., it wants to keep the psychological pressure up in the now-doubting SSPX clergy, who in turn pass their scruples along to the faithful, just as Rome planned).
In short, the precedent is now established in France, and conceded by the Society: SSPX marriages celebrated without delegation of the diocesan authority, are invalid.
But SSPX marriages prior to 2017 were celebrated without the diocesan delegation, for which logical consistency demands of the Society that they likewise recognize the invalidity of those marriages (or did the state of necessity mysteriously vanish in 2017 under Francis the Destroyer?).
That you and I know (despite the new policies of a quivering and doubting SSPX) those marriages to have been valid by supplied jurisdiction is beside the point. The point is that those of us who retain the old SSPX position must now defend it, not merely against Rome, but against the neo-SSPX, who now gives every indication of conciliar infection:
In such measure as they are incorporated into conciliarism, they become its agent, and the enemy of Tradition.